Commissioner of Income-tax-II v. M/s.Haware Engineers & Builders Pvt.Ltd - 2014-LL-1204-2

Citation	2014-LL-1204-2
Appellant Name	Commissioner of Income-tax-II
Respondent Name	M/s.Haware Engineers & Builders Pvt.Ltd.
Court	HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Relevant Act	Income-tax
Date of Order	04/12/2014
Judgment	View Judgment
Bot Summary:	CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATED : 4 DECEMBER 2014 P.C. Having heard Mr.Kotangale in support of the Appeal and Mr.Naniwadekar appearing on behalf of the Assessee, we are of the opinion that all the three questions and which have been framed by the Revenue and set out at pages 6 7 of the Paper Book are not substantial questions of law. In Income Tax Appeal No.201 of 2012 decided on 19 September 2014, the Division Bench of this Court, to which one of us is a party, has dealt with all Uday Kambli 1/2 ::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2014 three questions. In these circumstances questions 6.1 6.2 stand fully covered by that judgment. As far as question 6.3 is concerned, in the light of factual conclusion of the Tribunal and which is to be found at para 33 of the Tribunal's order, it is apparent that if other project styled as Tulsi is part or extension of Vrindavan Project Vrindavan Project is entitled to the benefit and deduction under section 80IB(10), Tulsi Project will also be entitled for the same. Any wider question or ba controversy does not arise for determination in the peculiar facts. All the three questions stand answered already against om the Revenue and in favour of the Assessee by the Division Bench of this Court. The Appeal does not raise any substantial question of law.

IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1668 OF 2012 Commissioner of Income Tax-II ..Appellant v/s. M/s.Haware Engineers & Builders Pvt.Ltd. ...Respondent Mr.Ashok Kotangale with Mr.Arun D.Nagarjun i/b Ms.Padma Diverkar for Appellant. Mr.Mihir Naniwadekar for Respondent. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI & A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATED : 4 DECEMBER 2014 P.C. Having heard Mr.Kotangale in support of Appeal and Mr.Naniwadekar appearing on behalf of Assessee, we are of opinion that all three questions and which have been framed by Revenue and set out at pages 6 & 7 of Paper Book are not substantial questions of law. om 2. order dated 4 May 2012, from which this Appeal arises, considers deduction under section 80IB(10) of B Income Tax Act, 1961. In Income Tax Appeal No.201 of 2012 (Commissioner of Income Tax-16 v/s. M/s.Happy Home Enterprises) decided on 19 September 2014, Division Bench of this Court, to which one of us (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J.) is party, has dealt with all Uday Kambli 1/2 ::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2014 three questions. It is not disputed that questions are answered in favour of Assessee and against Revenue. ou 3. In these circumstances questions 6.1 & 6.2 stand fully covered by that judgment. 4. As far as question 6.3 is concerned, in light of factual conclusion of Tribunal and which is to be found at para 33 of Tribunal's order, it is apparent that if other project styled as Tulsi is part or extension of Vrindavan Project, then, Vrindavan Project is entitled to benefit and deduction under section 80IB(10), Tulsi Project will also be entitled for same. In such circumstances, any wider question or ba controversy does not arise for determination in peculiar facts. All three questions, therefore, stand answered already against om Revenue and in favour of Assessee by Division Bench of this Court. Appeal does not raise any substantial question of law. It is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. B (A.A. SAYED, J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI,J.) Uday Kambl Commissioner of Income-tax-II v. M/s.Haware Engineers & Builders Pvt.Ltd

Metadata

Judgment