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

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Valsad Versus M/s. C.N. Builders & Developers

2018 (2) TMI 518 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

Claiming deduction u/s. 80IB (10) - whether disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) cannot be regarded as increase in profit of the assessee's business on which deduction u/s 80IC would be allowable? - Held that:- 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 Sectio .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ue 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, 44 OF 2015 - Dated:- 2-2-2018 - S. C. DHARMADHIKARI & PRAKASH D. NAIK, JJ. Mr. Tejveer Singh for the Appellant in all A .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

substantial questions of law: (i) 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? (ii) Whether on law and on facts and in the circumstances o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 circumstan .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

assessee firm as the income of the firm would be deductible u/s.80IB(10) of the Act and that the same is in the nature of reimbursement of expenses without appreciating the fact that the firm is not eligible for deduction u/s.80IB(10) and that the payment is covered by provisions of section 194C of the Act? 4. In Income Tax Appeal No. 44 of 2015 for the assessment year 2006-2007, same questions are proposed as substantial questions of law arising out of the ITAT order of the same date, but for t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

uction as the construction is not as per the approved 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. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nto consideration the records. He relied upon a consolidated order dated 29th May, 2009 passed by his predecessor and found that on facts, the same view deserves to be taken. He, therefore, followed his predecessor's view on facts. Then, before the Tribunal, the assessee supported this conclusion by contending that the Commissioner has examined the issue thoroughly and after seeking a remand report from the Assessing Officer on various occasions. The Tribunal had already held in the case of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Viswas Promoters Pvt. Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in (2013) 255 CTR (Mad) 149. The Tribunal also held that the facts being identical, the assessee should not be denied the benefit. 6. It is aggrieved by this order of the Tribunal that the Revenue has brought these Appeals. 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 20 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

eals would submit that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has assumed that if construction is as per the Development Control Rules (DCR), but not as per the approved plan, then it is not a violation of Section 80IB (10) and the assessee is entitled to deduction. Thus, the construction may not be in accordance with the approved plan, but so long as it does not contravene the DCR, the benefit cannot be denied. However, the Commissioner failed to appreciate that DCR and approved construction .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

eligible for deduction under Section 80IB (10) of the Act, then that payment is covered by the provisions of Section 194C of the Act. In that regard, he places reliance upon an order dated 12th July, 2017 passed in Income Tax Appeal No.1688 of 2014 (The Commissioner of Income TaxII, Pune vs. M/s. Lipid Technologies, Pune) in which such a question has been admitted. 11. On both counts, we are not in agreement with Mr. Tejveer Singh. Income Tax Appeal No. 1688 of 2014 raises a question of law whic .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| 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