A single judge High Court bench dismissed an income tax appeal contesting a Tribunal's order on deduction claims under Section 80IB. The court found issues were already settled by prior precedents and denied substantial question of law.
The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
614-14-itxa=.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 614 OF 2014
The Commissioner of Income Tax-V, Pune .. Appellant v/s. Pharande Developers .. Respondent
Mr. Tejveer Singh for the appellant None for the respondent
CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA & G.S.KULKARNI, J.J. DATED : 5th OCTOBER, 2016. P.C.
(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in granting the assessee's claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the I.T. Act, 1961 by not including terrace and canopy as part of residential unit, when the same were used exclusively for respective units and not part of common or shared area with others?
1 of 2
Uday S. Jagtap
614-14-itxa=.doc
(ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal erred or not in holding that the amended provisions u/s 80IB(10)(d) would not be applicable w.e.f. 01.04.2005 as the plan was approved by Municipal Authorities and construction was commenced prior to such date?
3. Re. question nos. (i) and (ii) :-
(a) Mr. Tejveer Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant Revenue very fairly states that the issues arising herein stands concluded against the Revenue and in favour of the respondent assessee by the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Happy Home Enterprise, 372 ITR 01 and the order dated 24th April, 2015 passed in Revenue's Appeal being Income Tax Appeal No.1628 of 2013 ( CIT Vs. M/s. Raviraj Kothari Punjabi Associates ).
(b) In the above view, questions (i) and (ii) as raised by the Revenue do not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained.
(G.S. KULKARNI, J.) (M.S. SANKLECHA, J.)
2 of 2
Uday S. Jagtap
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal was justified in granting deduction under s. 80IB(10) regarding terrace and canopy usage for specific units.
Whether amended provisions of s. 80IB(10)(d) were applicable given the plan approval and construction commencement dates.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Happy Home EnterpriseReferred¶15
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Happy Home Enterprise, 372 ITR 01
CIT Vs. M/s. Raviraj Kothari Punjabi AssociatesReferred¶15
CIT Vs. M/s. Raviraj Kothari Punjabi Associates
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Commissioner of Income Tax-V, Pune
Pharande Developers
M.S. Sanklecha
G.S. Kulkarni
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
