2015 (3) TMI 367

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uty Commissioner of Income Tax rejecting the petitioner's application for stay consequent to the Assessment Order dated 28.3.2014 passed for the Assessment Year 2011-12 pending disposal of its appeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 2. The petitioner on 22.2.2011 applied to the CBDT for approval of its Industrial Park - Techniplex - II (project) under Section 80IA(4) of the Act for Assessment Year 2011-12. However, the CBDT did not dispose of the petitioner's application and in the meantime the Assessing Officer passed the Assessment Order dated 28.3.2014 under Section 143(3) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2011-12 without extending benefit under Section 80IA(4) of the Act to the petitioner in respect of its projec....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....it jurisdiction, we are principally concerned with the decision making process and if the view of the authority is a possible view i.e. not arbitrary and/or perverse, we would not interfere. Besides questions of factual determination in the absence of it being perverse and/or arbitrary, not a subject matter of determination in writ jurisdiction. 5. At this point of time, Mr.Jhaveri emphasised that in the present facts there is a flaw in the decision making process as its application was rejected without grant of personal hearing. We found no such request of personal hearing in the letter dated 1.7.2014. We find that in the letter dated 1.7.2014, there is no request made for grant of personal hearing though in an earlier letter such an ap....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....law in the figures given, and thereafter keep changing it on grounds of typographical error and/or mistake. The applicant for a benefit of exemption must on the face of it be able to show that the conditions of exemption have been completely satisfied by him. Similarly, the second condition which the impugned order finds not satisfied is with regard to allocation of area for commercial activities. The impugned order records a finding of fact that even if the remeasured figure given by the petitioner is considered, the area allocated to the commercial activities is much more than 10%. The petitioner had claimed certain premises were carrying out information technology activities while the impugned order does record on facts that the actual a....