2019 (7) TMI 90 - HC - Income Tax

High Court upholds Tribunal's decision for assessee, rejects Revenue's arguments on Section 80IB(10) disallowance

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. Versus M/s. Ramesh Rajan Construction P Ltd.

The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision in favor of the assessee, finding no substantial questions of law in the issues raised by the Revenue. The ... Deduction u/s 80IB(10) rejected - assessee is not a developer but a works contractor - assessee did not satisfy the conditions for allowing the deduction - HELD THAT:- As referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.Raheja Development Corporation Vs. State of Karnataka [2005 (5) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT] . 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. 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] and the stand taken by the assessee was accepted by the Tribunal. This order was carried by the Revenue by way of appeal which was dismissed by judgement dated 19.06.2018 in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai Vs. Elegant Estates [2018 (6) TMI 1191 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] . Question was considered by the Hon'ble Division Bench and it was held that it was not a question of law much less a substantial question of law. Issues:1. Disallowance under Section 80IB(10) for violation of conditions.2. Interpretation of law in relation to a particular assessment year.3. Setting aside the order of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) based on misinterpretation.Issue 1: Disallowance under Section 80IB(10) for violation of conditions:The assessee claimed a deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act but the Assessing Officer disallowed it as the conditions were not satisfied. The disallowed sum was added back to the income. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed this addition, leading to an appeal before the Tribunal, which was allowed based on a previous decision in a similar case. The Revenue challenged this decision, arguing that the assessee was not a developer but a works contractor. However, since the revenue did not appeal the CIT(A)'s decision favoring the assessee, this argument was rejected. The Tribunal found in favor of the assessee, and the High Court upheld this decision.Issue 2: Interpretation of law in relation to a particular assessment year:The Revenue contended that the Tribunal should have considered the amendment to the Finance Act 2009, effective from 01.04.2010, for the assessment year 2010-11. They cited legal principles that the law applicable is that in force during the assessment year unless specified otherwise. However, the Tribunal found that the transactions occurred before the amendment came into effect, and the agreements were concluded in November 2008. The Tribunal had previously accepted a similar stand by the assessee in a related case. The High Court noted that a Division Bench had already dismissed a similar appeal by the Revenue, stating that it was not a substantial question of law. Consequently, the High Court found no substantial question of law in this case.Issue 3: Setting aside the DRP's order based on misinterpretation:The Tribunal set aside the order of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) citing misinterpretation of certain provisions. The Revenue challenged this decision, but the High Court found that the Tribunal's decision was based on factual considerations and legal interpretation. As there was no substantial question of law arising, the High Court dismissed the tax case appeal without costs.In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision in favor of the assessee, finding no substantial questions of law in the issues raised by the Revenue.