TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 1295X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C. Dharmadhikari And B. P. Colabawalla, JJ. Mr. Tejveer Singh, for the Appellant Mr. Jitendra Jain a/w Ms. Pinky M. Bhansali, for the Respondent ORDER P. C. Heard Mr. Tejveer Singh, for the Revenue in support of this Appeal. 2. Mr. Tejveer Singh submits that this Appeal arises out of the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Bench at Pune dated 15th April, 2013, in Income Tax Appeal No. 2210/PN/2012. 3. Mr. Tejveer Singh would submit that questions 3,4 and 5 on pages 12 and 13 of the paper book are substantial questions of law. They read thus:- I):Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in not appreciating the fact that Kumar K ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also admitted on Question No. II. 6. Now, the issue is with regard to questions I and III which are reproduced above. In relation to that Mr Tejveer Singh would submit that they are also substantial questions of law. 7. However, upon perusal of the impugned order of the Tribunal with the assistance of Mr. Singh and the learned advocate appearing for the Respondent/Assessee, we find that the questions were discussed as they arose from ground nos.5 to 11 for assessment year 2008-2009. After setting down the rival contentions in great details, the Tribunal concluded that the view that the Revenue desires it to take cannot be taken because the same Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Pune Bench in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the observation in the impugned order and approval of the layout plan is different from the approval of the building plan and while granting the benefit under Section 80IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 what has to be considered is the sanction of the building plan and not the layout plan needs consideration. Since the question raised in the appeal is covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Vandapa Properties (supra), we dispose of the appeal on the basis of the aforesaid decision. However, we make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion regarding the deduction under Section 80IB based on the approval of the layout plan/building plan and leave it to be decided in an appropriate case. 4. The appeal is disposed of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
