9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (5) TMI 922X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Following the dictum in Brigade Enterprises, the substantial question of law raised in this appeal is answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. - I.T.A. NO.424/2017 - - - Dated:- 5-2-2021 - HON BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND HON BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA APPELLANTS (BY SRI E.I. SANMATHI, ADVOCATE) RESPONDENT (BY SRI A. SHANKAR, SR.ADVOCATE FOR SRI M.LAVA, ADVOCATE) JUDGMENT V. SRISHANANDA. J., Revenue-State has preferred this appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short]. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the assessment year 2010-11. The appeal was admitted by this Court on 5.11.2018 for consideration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeals) allowed the appeal by an order dated 21.01.2016. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the revenue preferred this appeal. On the issue of deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Act, the Tribunal relied on the earlier decision which has not reached finality and even when the assessee has not constructed the flats as per the approved plan and conditions set out in Section 80IB(10) are not satisfied by assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal is erred in allowing deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Act when the project was approved with a sanctioned built up area and the assessee has eventually constructed the area far in excess of what was approved and prayed for allowing of this appeal. 4. O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ake interest - free advances for acquiring lands, property advances? 6. While dealing with the said substantial questions of law, the Division Bench of this Court referred Section14A(2) and Rule 8D(2) as it existed prior to its substitution by income tax 14th amendment Rules, 2016 with effect from 2.6.2016 which is applicable to the facts of this case and has held in paragraph Nos.1o to 13 as under: 10. Before dealing with first substantial question of law, it is apposite to take note of Section 14A(2) and Rule 8D(2) as it existed prior to its substitution by income tax 14th amendment Rules, 2016 with effect from 02.06.2016, which will apply to the facts of the case as the Assessment Year is 2009-10, which read as under: 14A.( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount computed in accordance with the following formula, namely:- A x B/C Where A = amount of expenditure by way of interest other than the amount of interest included in clause (f) incurred during the Previous Year; B = the average of value of investment, income from which does not or shall not form part of the total income, as appearing in the balance sheet of the assessee, on the first day and the last day of the Previous Year; C = the average of total assets as appearing in the balance sheet of the assessee, on the first day and the last day of the Previous Year. (iii) an amount equal to one-half percent of the average of the value of investment, income from which does not or shall not form part of the total i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st free funds and are sufficient to make tax free investments and therefore, the finding of the Assessing Officer that overdraft facility was directly used for making tax exempt investments have been reversed. The tribunal has affirmed the aforesaid finding in para 8.4.3 of its order. Thus, concurrent findings of fact have been recorded on the aforesaid issue, which could not be demonstrated to be perverse. Therefore, no interference is called with the aforesaid concurrent findings of fact in this appeal under Section 260A of the Act. [SEE: SYEDA RAHIMUNNISA VS. MALAN BI BY L.RS. AND ORS. (2016)10 SCC 315 and PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE ORS. VS. SOFTBRANDS INDIA P. LTD., (2018) 406 ITR 513]. 12. Thus, the first ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... foresaid concurrent findings of fact are based on meticulous appreciation of evidence on record and by no stretch of imagination can be said to be perverse. 7. In this regard, learned Senior Counsel also invited the attention of this court with regard to the clarification issued by the Chartered Accountants as to the applicability of the revised accounting Standard 7 to the enterprises which are in construction activity. He drew our attention to para Nos.6 and 11 of the aforesaid clarification in support of his contentions. 8. We have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and perused the records. 9. On close scrutiny of the judgment rendered by this court in Brigade Enterprises Ltd., supra, and the fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
