M/S. SILICON ESTATES, ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGLAURU

The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: - “1. The impugned order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - 11, Bengaluru, Karnataka passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the extent against the appellant is opposed to law, weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the provisions of section 80-IB(10)(e) and (f) inserted by Finance (No.2) Act 2009 w.e.f 01.04.2010 are prospective in nature w.e.f 01.04.2010 and consequently the appellant is entitled to full relief as claimed by the appellant under section 80-IB(10) of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in disallowing deduction under section 80-IB of the Act on a pro-rata basis in respect of the two flats allocated to Shri. Ramzan Ali Khan/RAK constructions (flat 1403 and flat 1503) and in respect of the two flats allocated to KAP(I) Projections and Constructions Pvt. Ltd. (flat 610 and 409) as alleged by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in the order on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the appellant is entitled to deduction under section 80-IB(10) of the Act tothe extent claimed by the appellant for the impugned Assessment Year and no disallowance is warranted on the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) failed to consider the detailed written submission filed by the appellant in respect of the above issues on the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in not adjudicating the grounds of appeal vide Ground No. 7 and further erred in holding that it becomes academic and therefore need not be adjudicate and is treated as dismissed for statistical purpose on the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. The Appellant denies itself liable to be charged interest under Section 234B of the Act in respect of the extent of disallowance of deduction under section80-IB(10) of the Act confirmed by the learned Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals) on the facts and circumstance of the case. 8. The appellant craves for leave of this Hon'ble Tribunal, to add, alter, delete, amend or substitute any or all of the above grounds of appeal as may benecessary at the time of hearing. 9. For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of appeal, the appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed for the advancement of substantial cause of justice and equity.”

The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: - 1) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) is right in law in relying upon the decision of Hon'ble Juri ictional ITAT rendered in assessee's own case for AY 2013-14 even when the same has not yet reached finality and pending for adjudication before Hon'ble High Court? 2) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in allowing deduction under section 80-IB(10), without appreciating that the assessee violated clause (e) and (f) of Section 80-IB(10) by allotting more than one residential units in the housing project to any person not being an individual? 3) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) is right in law in allowing proportionate relief to assessee even though the Explanatory Circular No. 5/2010 dated 3.6.2010 for Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009 mandates that the conditions contained in clauses (a) to (f) of section80-IB(10) are cumulative, as is evident from the use of semi colon (;) after each clause up to clause (d) and use of 'and' between clauses (e) and (1), and therefore to be eligible for deduction under section 80-IB(10), all conditions specified in clauses (a) to (f) would have to be met in full? 4) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in ignoring that the principle of proportionality is not applicable to clauses (e) and (f) of Section 80-IB(10) and thus, erred in not following the ratio of Padmasundara Rao (2002) 255 ITR 147 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that courts cannot read anything into a statutory provision which is plain and unambiguous?”

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Partnership firm constituted vide Deed of Partnership dated 04.07.2005 & engaged in the business of Development and construction of residential and commercial buildings. The partners of the assessee firm are Mr. H.J. Siwani, Mr. M.J. Siwani and Sri Chandra Singh.The Partnership firm is also registered with the