High Court Bench dismissed Income Tax Appeal No. 691 of 2014, holding that a substantial question of law did not arise regarding the date of approval for Section 80IB(10) deduction, as concurrent findings established distinct projects.
Appeal dismissed; no substantial question of law found.
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.
691-14-itxa=.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 691 OF 2014
The Commissioner of Income Tax-II Pune
.. Appellant
v/s.
M/s. A.V. Bhat Developers ..Respondent
Mr. Vipul Bajpayee 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 erred in allowing the assessee's
1 of 4
Uday S. Jagtap
691-14-itxa=.doc
claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act of Rs.1,46,24,573/-?
(ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal erred in failing to appreciate that the first approval in respect of the housing project had been given by the Municipal Corporation on 02.11.2003 and the said approval has to be reckoned for the purpose of granting deduction u/s 80IB(10) to the assessee in view of Explanation to the said section ?
2 of 4
Uday S. Jagtap
691-14-itxa=.doc
3 of 4
Uday S. Jagtap
691-14-itxa=.doc
as was approved in 19th January, 2005. Therefore, the CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal were not correct in holding that the two projects were different and that the approval obtained on 19th January, 2005 was the approval obtained on a project different from that obtained on 2nd November, 2003. We find that this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vandana Properties, 19 Taxmann.com 316 has specifically held that the Explanation to Section 80IB(10)(a) of the Act refers to approval granted to the same housing project more than once and the said Explanation would not apply where the approval is granted to different housing projects. In view of the concurrent finding of fact by two Authorities, which is not shown to be perverse and the application of law as settled by this Court on those facts, the question of law as framed does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained.
(G.S. KULKARNI, J.) (M.S. SANKLECHA, J.)
4 of 4
Uday S. Jagtap
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal erred in allowing the assessee's claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act?
Whether the Tribunal erred in failing to appreciate that the first approval in respect of the housing project had been given by the Municipal Corporation on 02.11.2003?
Whether the Explanation to Section 80IB(10) of the Act applies to different housing projects or only the same project approved more than once?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
_Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vandana Properties_Explained¶29
_Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vandana Properties, 19 Taxmann.com 316_
2 provisions across 1 enactments
The Commissioner of Income Tax-II Pune
M/s. A.V. Bhat Developers
M.S. Sanklecha
G.S. Kulkarni
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
