TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 90X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue is not entitled to canvass the said contention before this Court. Accordingly, substantial question of law no.3 is rejected. Scope of amendment with effect from 01.04.2010 vide Finance Act 2009 - transaction entered prior to amendment - applicability of ammendment in A.Y. 2010-11 - HELD THAT:- This issue does not arise in the instant case as on facts, as recorded by the Tribunal, the transactions took place much prior to the amendment coming into force. The registered sale deed and the agreements had been executed and the transaction stood concluded in November 2008 much prior to the amendment. In fact, this issue is subject matter of consideration before the Tribunal in the Elegant Estates [ 2016 (5) TMI 1441 - ITAT CHENNAI] an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ear and therefore not entitled to deduction? (ii) Whether the Tribunal ought to have followed the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Reliance Jute and Industrial Ltd reported in 2 Taxman 471(SC) wherein it was held that a right claimed by an assessee under law in force in a particular assessment year is ordinarily available only in relation to the proceeding pertaining to that year? (iii) Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in setting aside the order of the DRP dated 24.11.2015 in misreading para 3.2.1 and para 3.3.4 on the interpretation of the provisions in sub-sections (5), (7) and (8) of Section 144C of the Act proving perversity in recording findings at paras 7 8 of the impugn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t a developer but a works contractor. In this regard, the learned counsel referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.Raheja Development Corporation Vs. State of Karnataka reported in [2005 (5) SCC 162] . However, going through an order passed by the CIT(A), we find that this issue was decided in favour of the assessee and the revenue did not prefer any appeal against the said finding recorded by the CIT(A) in paragraph 5 and 6 of its order dated 30.06.2016. Therefore, the Revenue is not entitled to canvass the said contention before this Court. Accordingly, substantial question of law no.3 is rejected. 7. Substantial questions of law no.1 2 relate to the claim of deducti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
