2017 (1) TMI 819

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ollowing common reframed questions of law for our consideration : (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in holding that even though project exceeds the limits of commercial area of 2000 sq. ft. as prescribed in section 80IB(10), it would not apply to this project as this project was approved prior to 1.4.2005? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in holding that income in respect of buildings A4 to A8 will be entitled to deduction even though for building A1 to A3 commencement dated is 28.02.1997 which is before 01.10.1998 as prescribed by Section 80IB(10)? (iii) Whether on the facts and circumstanc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nction plan ? 3. Regarding question (i) : (a) Mr. Tejveer Singh, learned Counsel for the Revenue very fairly states that the issue raised herein stands concluded against the Revenue by the decision of the Apex Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sarkar Builders, 375 ITR 392. (b) Therefore, the question as proposed does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained. 4. Regarding question (ii) : (a) The impugned order of the Tribunal has granted the benefit of Section 80IB(10) of the Act to the respondent assessee in respect of the building nos. A4 to A8. The question as raised by the Revenue is with regard to grant of benefit under Section 80IB(10) of the Act relates to building Nos. A1 to A3. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e respondent assessee by the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Raviraj Kothari Punjabi Associates (Income Tax Appeal No. 1628 of 2013) rendered on 24th April, 2015. (c) In the above view, the question as proposed does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained. 7. Regarding question (vii) : (a) The impugned order of the Tribunal held that the respondent assessee is entitled to the benefit of Section 80IB(10) of the Act even in respect of the amenities / additional parking provided in the housing project, which were approved / regularised after construction. (b) The impugned order of the Tribunal on this issue relied upon the decision of its coordinate bench in ITO Vs. Mahaveer ....