PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-20 vs. SHIPRA ESTATE LTD. & JAI KISHAN ESTATE DEVELOPERS PVT.LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/802/2016HC DelhiDLHC01278005201616 November 2016Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that no question of law arises from the ITAT's decision regarding the method of accounting adopted by the assessee. This conclusion was reached because the ITAT's ruling was based on several previous judgments of the High Court and adhered to the rule of consistency concerning previous years, despite the AO's initial rejection. Regarding the second issue, the applicability of deduction under Section 80-IB(10), the High Court noted that the ITAT had remitted the matter to the CIT(A) for factual determination. Consequently, the court found no question of law arising on this account either. As no substantial questions of law were identified, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-20 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) concerning Shipra Estate Ltd. & Jai Kishan Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd. The assessment year(s) are not specified in the judgment. The Revenue challenged the ITAT's ruling on two primary issues: the method of accounting adopted by the assessee and the applicability of deduction under Section 80-IB(10). The Assessing Officer (AO) had rejected the assessee's accounting method, but the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] and the ITAT ruled in favour of the assessee. The ITAT's decision on accounting was based on previous High Court judgments and the rule of consistency for prior years. On the second issue, the ITAT had remitted the matter for factual determination by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

1. Whether a question of law arises concerning the method of accounting adopted by the assessee, given that the AO rejected it, but the CIT(A) and ITAT ruled in favour of the assessee, with the ITAT relying on previous High Court judgments and the rule of consistency. Assessee's Contention: Not explicitly recorded, but implicitly supported by the CIT(A) and ITAT's favourable rulings. Revenue's Contention: The AO rejected the assessee's method of accounting, implying disagreement with the subsequent favourable rulings. 2. Whether a question of law arises regarding the applicability of deduction under Section 80-IB(10), where the ITAT has remitted the matter to the CIT(A) for factual determination. Assessee's Contention: Not explicitly recorded. Revenue's Contention: Not explicitly recorded. The judgment states that no question of law arises on either of these counts.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80-IB(10)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~85 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 802/2016 PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-20 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Adv. versus SHIPRA ESTATE LTD. & JAI KISHAN ESTATE DEVELOPERS PVT.LTD ..... Respondent Through CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI O R D E R % 16.11.2016 The questions of law urged in this case by the Revenue firstly pertained to the method of accounting adopted by the assessee for the concerned assessment year. On this, though the Assessing Officer (‘AO’) had rejected the assessee’s explanation, concurrently the Appellate Authorities i.e. the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) ruled in its favour. This Court also notices that the ITAT’s ruling is based upon several previous judgments on this Court and is also based on rule of consistency vis-a-vis the previous years. Therefore, no question of law arises. As far as the second issue sought to be agitated i.e. applicability of deduction [Section 80(IB)(10)], the ITAT has remitted the matter for factual determination by the CIT(A). In this circumstances, no

questions of law on that account arises. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J NAJMI WAZIRI, J NOVEMBER 16, 2016/kk

More judgments on Section 80-IB(10)

All 100 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80-IB(10) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →