The Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore / The Income-tax Officer Ward-4(3), Bangalore v. Mahaveer Tuscan
[Citation -2020-LL-0902-7]

Citation 2020-LL-0902-7
Appellant Name The Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore / The Income-tax Officer Ward-4(3), Bangalore
Respondent Name Mahaveer Tuscan
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 02/09/2020
Assessment Year 2009-10
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags housing project • local authority

1 IN HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 PRESENT HON BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND HON BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD I.T.A. NO.228 OF 2014 BETWEEN: 1. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE. 2. INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD-4(3), C.R. BUILDING QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI.K.V.ARAVIND, ADV.,) AND: M/S. MAHAVEER TUSCAN NO.1, 24TH MAIN MAHAVEER TOWERS J P NAGAR, 6TH PHASE BANGALORE-560078. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI.A.SHANKAR SR. ADV. A/W SRI.M.LAVA, ADV.) --- THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T. ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 20.12.2013 PASSED IN ITA NO.67/BANG/2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, PRAYING THAT THIS HON BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO: 2 (I) FORMULATE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN. (I) ALLOW APPEAL AND SET ASIDE ORDERS PASSED BY ITAT, BANGALORE IN ITA NO.67/BANG/2013 CONFIRMING ORDER OF APPELLATE COMMISSIONER AND CONFIRM ORDER PASSED BY INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(3), BANGALORE. THIS ITA COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT This appeal under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act for short) has been preferred by revenue. subject matter of appeal pertains to Assessment year 2009-10. appeal was admitted by bench of this Court vide order dated 02.09.2014 on following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether appellate authorities were correct in holding that assessee firm is eligible for deduction under Section 80IB(10) of Income-Tax Act despite fact that there was large scale violations and deviations to sanctioned plan of local authority by assessee firm in carrying out Housing Project without appreciating fundamental nature of legislature for providing such relief? 3 (ii) Whether appellate authorities were correct in construing that deviations and violations committed by assessee while undertaking housing project and yet to be paid compounding fee for regularizing default is fairly enough to claim deduction under Section 80IB(10) without appreciating intended structure of legislative provisions of Section 80IB? 2. For reasons assigned by us in order passed today in ITA No.13/2013, substantial questions of law are answered against revenue and in favour of assessee. In result, appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE ss Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore / Income-tax Officer Ward-4(3), Bangalore v. Mahaveer Tuscan
Report Error