THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIT(A) vs. M/S KARAVALI HOUSING

PDF · subscribers
ITA/120/2016HC KarnatakaKAHC01024024201604 October 2021Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted the Revenue's submission that the Tribunal had dismissed both the Revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross-objections. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal without answering the substantial question of law.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against an ITAT order that allowed a deduction under Section 80IB(10) to the assessee. The appeal was admitted to consider a substantial question of law regarding the violation of the minimum 1-acre land area condition.

What were the issues?

Whether the Tribunal erred in allowing deduction under Section 80IB(10) despite the assessee violating the minimum 1-acre land area condition.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80IB(10),Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA AND

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V. HOSMANI

I.T.A. NO.120/2016

BETWEEN:

1.

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIT(A) C.R.BUILDING, ATTAVARA MANGALURU-575 001.

2.

THE ASST. COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-2(1), C.R.BUILDING BANGALORE-560 001.

…APPELLANTS

[BY SRI. E.I. SANMATHI, ADVOCATE A/W SRI. K.V.ARAVIND, ADVOCATE (PHYSICAL HEARING)]

AND:

M/s. KARAVALI HOUSING NO.9, CITY POINT, KODIALBAIL MANGALURU-575 001. PAN: AAGFK2974D.

… RESPONDENT

[BY SRI. MALHAR RAO K., ADVOCATE (PHYSICAL HEARING)]

THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 11.09.2015 PASSED IN C.O. No.58/BANG/2014, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2010.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, S.SUJATHA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

This appeal is preferred by the Revenue under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’ for short) assailing the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru (‘Tribunal’ for short) passed in C.O.No.58/Bang/2014 dated 11.09.2015.

The appeal was admitted to consider the following substantial question of law: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in allowing deduction under Section 80IB(10) to the assessee despite violation of condition contained in 80IB(10)(b) which states that the housing project should be on a plot of land which has a minimum area of 1 acre?”

Learned counsel for the Revenue drawing the attention of the Court to paragraphs 10 and 11 of the impugned order submitted that the Tribunal has recorded that the cross objections of the assessee filed are only in support of the order of CIT(A) and accordingly dismissed the appeal of the revenue and

cross objections of the assessee. Hence, no substantial question of law requires to be answered in the present appeal.

The said submission is placed on record.

Accordingly, appeal stands dismissed sans answering the substantial question of law raised, reserving liberty to the revenue to raise the substantial question of law in ITA No.123/2016 arising out of the common impugned order of the Tribunal dated 11.09.2015.

Sd/- JUDGE

Sd/- JUDGE

BVK

More judgments on Section 80IB(10)

All 838 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80IB(10) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →