Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Home Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles News Highlights
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II Versus Kumar Builders Consortium

2016 (8) TMI 1295 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

Deduction u/s. 80IB(10) - Date of approval of the building plan - Held that :- As held in the case of Aditya Developers [2013 (3) TMI 512 - ITAT Pune] from the very reading of the Explanation (i) makes it clear that the date on which building plan of such housing project is approved shall be deemed the date of approval of the housing project - the assessee is very much eligible for the claimed deduction u/s. 80 IB (10) on the project, thus in our view, the Ld CIT(A) has rightly allowed the claim .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

13, 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 Kruti project is a part of larger project i.e. Kumar City which was approved on 08.08.2003 and the housing project had not been completed by 31.03.2008, thus .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

project approved by the local authority and there is no question of allowing deduction to a part of the project? III): 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 the larger project, Kumar City project contained commercial area more than stipulated as per provisions of section 80IB(10), thus violating the provisions of clause (d) to section 80IB (10) of the Act? 4. In relation to question no. II, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t 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 Appella .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

by a Division Bench of this Court on 28th January, 2013 with the following findings:- 1. In these appeals filed by the revenue for the assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05, though several questions have been raised by the revenue, question (a) as formulated by the revenue would deal with the present controversy:- Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT did not err in holding that the project Krishna Keval Township is fulfilling all the requirements of Sect .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Forum
what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version