2025 (7) TMI 378

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... require determination by this Court. (i) "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled for deduction u/s 80IB(10) without appreciating the facts that the original plan for the project was approved on 24.04.1998 and the construction started before 01.10.1998 i.e. prior to the section 80IB(10) as is evident from the details of expenditure incurred by the assessee for construction and therefore the AO was justified in holding the assessee ineligible for deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act?" (ii) "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in accepting the claim of the assessee that the constr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... to the concerned Municipal Corporation on 5th May 1999. In the appeal filed by the Revenue before the ITAT, the Tribunal, apart from not finding any infirmity in the order passed by the CIT (A), further noted that in the earlier Assessment Year, namely Assessment Year 2001-02, the same argument was canvassed and was negated by the Tribunal by its Order dated 8th February 2013. In fact, the relevant portion of the said Order is also reproduced by the ITAT in the impugned Order. The Tribunal, therefore, was of the view that in the absence of any contrary material, they did not find any infirmity in the Order of the CIT (A) on this issue. 4. Having perused the Order of the CIT (A) as well as the impugned order, we note that the findings give....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 328 ITR 81 held that Rule 8D would apply only from Assessment Year 2008-09 onwards. The Tribunal therefore, came to a conclusion that the CIT (A) restricting the disallowance to 10% of the exempt income was on the basis of his discretion and did not suffer from any infirmity. 6. On this issue, we find that the Tribunal has correctly relied upon the decision of this Court in Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. (Supra) to uphold the Order passed by the CIT (Appeals). In fact, we find that even after passing of the impugned order, this issue came up before Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Essar Teleholdings Ltd. (2018) 401 ITR 445 (SC). In this decision,....