Dismissed

Commissioner of Income Tax 20, Mumbai v. Shri Vijay Mallya

Bombay HC16 Aug 2016ITXA/161/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the Income Tax appeal as the questions of law raised were not substantial. The court held the points were conclusively settled by the Gujarat High Court in Radhe Developers and affirmed by this Court in Cajetano Mario Pereira, rendering no further examination necessary. The appeal was dismissed without costs.

What did the court decide?

No order as to costs.

Commissioner of Income Tax 20, Mumbai Vs Shri Vijay Mallya — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

161-14-itxa=.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 161 OF 2014

¶4

Commissioner of Income Tax-20, Mumbai

.. Appellant

v/s.

Vijay Mallya

.. Respondent

Mrs. S.V. Bharucha for the appellant

¶10

Ms. Aarti Sathe a/w Mr. Kalpesh Turalkar for the respondent

¶11

CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA & A.K. MENON, J.J.

¶12

DATED : 16^th AUGUST, 2016.

¶13

P.C.

¶14

This Appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) challenges the order dated 8^th May, 2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). The impugned order is in respect of Assessment Year 2002-03.

¶15

The Revenue urges following two questions of law for our consideration :-

¶16

“(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

¶17

and in law, the Tribunal was right in deciding the eligibility of

1 of 3

Uday S. Jagtap

161-14-itxa=.doc

deduction without considering the mandatory conditions stipulated u/s 80IB and 80IB(10) of the Act?

¶22

(ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in not giving any findings about the difference between the developer builder and construction contractor for the purpose of claiming deduction u/s 80IB(1) of the Act?”

¶23

Mrs. Bharucha, learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue very fairly states that both the questions as raised herein stands concluded by the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Commissioner of Income

¶24

Tax Vs. Radhe Developers, 341 ITR 403 . In fact, the impugned order of the Tribunal places reliance upon the aforesaid decision in Radhe Developers (supra) while dismissing the Revenue's appeal before it. In fact, as pointed out by Counsel, the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Radhe Developers (supra) has been agreed to by this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Cajetano Mario Pereira , (Income Tax No.22 of 2014), decided on 5^th March, 2014. No distinction in the present facts from that in Radhe Developers (supra) has been pointed out to us which would warrant our taking a different view.

2 of 3

Uday S. Jagtap

161-14-itxa=.doc