TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 518X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... estion arises in these Appeals. We have already held above that the substantial questions of law in these Appeals revolve around interpretation of Section 80IB( 10) of the Income Tax Act We have already held above that the substantial questions of law in these Appeals revolve around interpretation of Section 80IB( 10). We see no justification, therefore, for the Revenue seeking assistance of an order of admission in a distinct case (M/s. Lipid Technologies (2018 (2) TMI 351 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT). Therefore, Mr. Tejveer Singh's contentions with regard to this order being applicable to the facts of the present case deserve to be rejected. The contentions are therefore rejected. - INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1779 OF 2014, INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 7, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l No. 7 of 2015, the ITAT order of the same date for the assessment year 2005-2006 has been challenged and three questions are proposed as substantial questions of law. These three questions read as under: 1) Whether on law and on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. ITAT was justified in concurring with the CIT(A) that all the conditions for claiming deduction u/s. 80IB (10) of the Act have been met without appreciating the fact that the CIT(A) has accepted that the size of the plot on which the project has been constructed to be of more than one acre without there being a proper subdivision? 2) Whether on law and on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in holding that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plan, the approved plan has commercial area more than 2000 sq. ft. and the project was not completed by 31st March, 2008, in the sense, the final completion certificate was not received. The land was not in the name of the assessee and the approval was also not in the assessee's name. The area will be less than one acre if only the construction of buildings B, C and D is considered. It is in these circumstances that deduction was denied. The disallowance was made and a sum of ₹ 81,54,800/was added to the total income of the assessee. An order was passed by the Assessing Officer, copy of which is annexure A , and aggrieved by that, an Appeal was preferred before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Valsad. On 21st July, 2010, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 7. During pendency of these Appeals, we had an occasion to deal with several Appeals of the Revenue on the point. The common questions in Income Tax Appeal Nos. 441, 444, 452, 479, 489 and 500 of 2015 were somewhat identical to the questions proposed in the present Appeals by the Revenue. In the detailed judgment and order delivered on 25th September, 2017, we had dismissed the Revenue's Appeals. 8. Ordinarily, we would have expected the Revenue to concede the point as the detailed judgment of this Court in the batch of the Appeals referred above squarely applies to the facts of this case. 9. However, Mr. Tejveer Singh, learned Advocate appearing for the Revenue in support of these Appeals would submit that the Commissioner o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... antial, but pertaining to a deduction under Section 80IC of the Income Tax Act. There, the Tribunal had held that the disallowance was not justified. The Revenue complained that the Tribunal was not justified and failed to appreciate that this disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) cannot be regarded as increase in profit of the assessee's business on which deduction under Section 80IC would be allowable. In the opinion of the Revenue, that amount has already been expended. We do not see how such a question arises in these Appeals. We have already held above that the substantial questions of law in these Appeals revolve around interpretation of Section 80IB( 10) of the Income Tax Act. We see no justification, therefore, for the Revenue se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
