TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1821X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied upon its earlier decision in the case of M/s. S J R Enterprises [2009 (8) TMI 953 - BANGALORE TRIBUNAL COURT ] which has been not interfered with by this Court in the above referred [ 2012 (3) TMI 615 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] , the present appeals are squarely covered by the decision of this Court - No substantial questions would continue to remain, but even if the questions are to be examined, they would stand answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee - Income Tax Appeal No. 468 of 2015 C/W. Income Tax Appeal No. 22 of 2012 Income Tax Appeal No. 591 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 8-3-2017 - MR. JAYANT PATEL AND MR.N. K. SUDHINDRARAO JJ. Appellants: (By Sri E.I. Sanmathi, Adv.) Respondent: (By Sri N. Jagadi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s earlier decision in the case of M/s. S J R Enterprises (2010) 3 ITR (Trib.) 569 . He has fairly contended that the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal was carried before this Court in ITA.No.32/2010 and this Court vide order dated 19.03.2012 has dismissed the said appeal. 4. We may record that in the above referred decision of this Court dated 19.03.2012 in ITA.No.32/2012 , it was observed thus: The revenue has preferred this appeal challenging the order passed by the Tribunal granting proportionate benefit of exemption under Section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The assessee is engaged in construction and real estate business in the name and style of SJR Builders. It undertook construction in the na ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e prescribed limit, the assessee will lose the benefit. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Authority for fresh consideration in the light of the observations made in the Tribunal s order. Aggrieved by the said order, the revenue is in appeal. 3. The learned Counsel for the revenue assailing the impugned order contended that once it is established that the flats constructed measures more than 1500 sq. ft., the assessee is not entitled to exemption under Section 80IB(10) of the Act. It is immaterial whether such a violation is found only in few flats and therefore, he submits that the impugned order requires to be set aside. 4. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as been defined and the position is made clear. In the instant case, as the plan was sanctioned on 18.10.2003 and the modified plan was sanctioned on 01.06.2004, for calculating the total built up area of these flats, the space occupied by the balcony cannot be taken into consideration. Similarly, prior to 19.08.2009, during that period, there was no prohibition for a person purchasing two flats. Therefore, when a mezzanine floor and a flat is purchased under two separate sale deeds for the purpose of finding out the benefit under the aforesaid provision, we have to look into the measurement contained in the sale deeds. If that is done, there is no violation. At any rate, the appellate Tribunal though has held that the assessee is entitled ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
