2017 (2) TMI 390 - HC - Income Tax

Court Upholds Tribunal's Decision on Income Tax Act Section 80IB(10)(d) Appeals

The Court dismissed both appeals related to the interpretation and application of Section 80IB(10)(d) of the Income Tax Act. In the case of the 'Brahma ... Deduction u/s. 80IB(1)- whether housing project 'Brahma Avenue' approved on 06.10.2000 which was still incomplete by 31.03.2008 in violation of section 80IB(10)(a)(i) of the Act? - Held that:- Tribunal hold that Brahma Avenue project is a different and independent project from the project of Brahma Estate. This finding of fact is not shown to be perverse in any manner. On the basis of above facts, the impugned order placed reliance inter alia upon decision of this Court in CIT vs. Vandana Properties [2012 (4) TMI 54 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ] to hold that Brahma Avenue being a separate and different project is independent of project Brahma Estate and it cannot be considered to be part of Brahma Estate project. - Decided against the Revenue Issues:1. Interpretation of Section 80IB(10)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the project 'Brahma Majestics' for Assessment Year 2007-08.2. Compliance with the provisions of Section 80IB(10)(d) regarding the built-up area of Commercial Units in the 'Brahma Majestic' project.3. Deduction under Section 80IB(1) for the housing project 'Brahma Avenue' approved in 2000 but incomplete by 2008.Analysis:Issue 1 - Interpretation of Section 80IB(10)(d) for 'Brahma Majestics' (A.Y. 2007-08):The Revenue contended that the amended provision of Section 80IB(10)(d) should apply to the project 'Brahma Majestics' for A.Y. 2007-08. However, the Tribunal held otherwise. The Court relied on previous decisions, including CIT vs. Happy Home Enterprises and CIT vs. Sarkar Builders, where similar issues were decided against the Revenue. Consequently, the Court found no substantial question of law in this regard and dismissed the appeal.Issue 2 - Compliance with Section 80IB(10)(d) for 'Brahma Majestic' Commercial Units:The Tribunal determined that the 'Brahma Majestic' project had Commercial Units exceeding the prescribed limit of 2000 sq.ft., violating Section 80IB(10)(d) provisions. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that the project's approval as a 'housing project' did not exempt it from compliance with the specified requirements. The Court found no merit in the Revenue's arguments based on previous decisions and dismissed the appeal.Issue 3 - Deduction under Section 80IB(1) for 'Brahma Avenue' project:Regarding the deduction under Section 80IB(1) for the 'Brahma Avenue' project approved in 2000 but incomplete by 2008, the Tribunal considered it a separate project from 'Brahma Estate.' The Court found this factual determination reasonable and in line with the decision in CIT vs. Vandana Properties. The Revenue's contentions were rejected based on the precedent set by the earlier judgment. Consequently, the Court did not find any substantial question of law in this matter and dismissed the appeal.In conclusion, both appeals were dismissed by the Court, with no order as to costs. The judgments in this case were based on the interpretation and application of relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act, supported by previous legal precedents and factual considerations specific to each project under scrutiny.