The High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeals against the Amritala Tribunal, holding that there was no substantial question of law as the co-ordinate Division Bench in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Elegant Estates already adjudicated the legal position and facts regarding the prospective amendment.
Appeals of the Revenue dismissed with no 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 19.06.2018
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Ms.JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE
and THE HONOURABLE Ms.JUSTICE P.T. ASHA
T.C.A.Nos.179 and 180 of 2018
The Commissioner of Income Tax,
Chennai. ... Appellant/Appellant
in both appeals
Vs.
M/s.Elegant Estates,
No.1B/3, 1 st Main Road,
Gandhi Nagar,
Adyar,
Chennai-600 020. . .. Respondent/Respondent
in both appeals
Prayer in both appeals:
Tax Case Appeals filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against an order dated 19.05.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras “B” Bench in I.T.A.Nos.224 and 225 /Mds/2016.
(2)
For Appellant : Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar in both appeals
For Respondent : Mr.Sivaraman in both appeals
COMMON JUDGMENT
The instant Tax Case Appeals have been filed by the Revenue, challenging the common order dated 19.05.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras “B” Bench in I.T.A.Nos.224 and 225 /Mds/2016.
a total income of Rs.29,77,127/-. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as “the said Act” on 15.1.2012. Likewise, for the assessment year 20122013, the respondent assessee filed return of income electronically on 28.3.2012 declaring a total income of Rs.69,29,550/-.
(3)
the same family, Smt. Latha Ramachandran and Shri K.Ramachandran, being husband and wife.
Assessing Officer disallowed deduction of Rs.8,87,57,581/- and Rs.4,35,48,266/- under Section 80IB of the said Act on the ground that two adjacent flats, that is, Flat No.403 and Flat No.404, had been sold to the members of the same family, Smt. Latha Ramachandran and Shri K.Ramachandran, who, as stated above, are husband and wife. The super built-up area of Flat No.404 was 1572 Sq.Ft. and Flat No.403 was 1653 Sq.Ft., the total being 3225 Sq.Ft.
“Section 80-IB. Deduction in respect of profits and gains from certain industrial undertakings other than infrastructure development undertakings. (1) to (9) ....
(4)
(10) The amount of deduction in the case of an undertaking developing and building housing projects approved before the 31st day of March, 2008 by a local authority shall be hundred per cent of the profits derived in the previous year relevant to any assessment year from such housing project if,—
(a) to (e) ....
(f) in a case where a residential unit in the housing project is allotted to a person being an individual, no other residential unit in such housing project is allotted to any of the following persons, namely:—
(i) the individual or the spouse or the minor children of such individual,
(ii) the Hindu undivided family in which such individual is the karta,
(iii) any person representing such individual, the spouse or the minor children of such individual or the Hindu undivided family in which such individual is the karta.”
(5)
the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Chennai. It is the contention of the appellant that the assessee is not eligible for deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the said Act, since conditions prescribed thereunder, have not been complied with.
allowed the appeals, inter alia , holding that the flats in question were sold on 14.1.2008 and 16.7.2008 respectively and that the amendment of Section 80IB of the said Act, which was prospective with effect from 1.4.2010, had no application.
Tribunal. By the order impugned in these appeals, the appeals of the Revenue have been dismissed by the learned Tribunal.
(i) Whether the assessee was entitled to deduction
under Section 80IB(10) of the said Act of Rs.8,87,57,581/and Rs.4,35,48,266/respectively in respect of the two residential flats in the housing project measuring 1653 Sq. Ft.
(6)
and 1572 Sq. Ft. respectively (total area being 3225 Sq.Ft.) sold to the husband wife couple?
Commissioner and the learned Tribunal that actually sale of flats in question took place in 2008, long before the amendment of Section 80IB of the said Act, which is prospective, there is no question of law,
(7)
let alone substantial question of law, involved in these appeals. It is well settled that right of appeal is not automatic, but is conferred by statute. The right of appeal to the High Court conferred under Section 260A of the said Act is a limited right of appeal, restricted only to substantial questions of law. The appeals cannot, therefore, be entertained.
(8)
For the reasons discussed above, these appeals are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P.No.2393 of 2018 is closed.
(I.B. C.J.,) (P.T.A. J.,)
19.06.2018
Speaking Order /Non-speaking order
Internet: Yes
Index : Yes
mps/sasi
To
1. The Registrar
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,
Madras “B” Bench, Chennai.
(9)
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE and P.T. ASHA, J.
(sasi)
T.C.A.Nos.179 and 180 of 2018
19.06.2018
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the assessee was entitled to deduction under Section 80IB(10) for flats sold to a husband and wife?
Whether the Tribunal erred in holding that the amendment barring sale to relatives was prospective?
Whether appeals under Section 260A involving facts covered by a co-ordinate Division Bench decision are maintainable?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai v. Elegant EstatesRelied on¶13
Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai v. Elegant Estates, reported in (2017) 79 taxmann.com 397 (Madras)
2 provisions across 1 enactments
The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai
M/s Elegant Estates
Indira Banerjee
P.T. Asha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
