THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. MANDAVI BUILDERS

PDF · subscribers
ITA/315/2015HC KarnatakaKAHC01034161201522 September 2020Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the substantial questions of law were to be answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. The appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against an ITAT order concerning the assessment year 2010-11. The appeal questioned whether unaccounted money found during search proceedings, explained as on-money received, was eligible for deduction under Section 80IB(10). It also questioned the eligibility of transactions with flat buyers for deduction despite alleged violations of Section 80IB(10) sub-sections.

What were the issues?

The key issues were the eligibility of unaccounted on-money receipts for deduction under Section 80IB(10) and the eligibility of transactions for deduction despite violations of Section 80IB(10) sub-sections before amendments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80IB(10)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

AND

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD

I.T.A. NO.315/2015 BETWEEN

1.

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, C.R. BUILDING QUEENS ROAD, MANGALORE-575001.

2.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

CENTRAL CIRCLE, C.R. BUILDING

ATTAVARA, MANGALORE-575001.

... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.,)

AND:

M/S. MANDAVI BUILDERS MANDAVI PALACE, END POINT ROAD MANIPAL, UDUPI-576104 PAN: AAOFM 0540 P. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. A. SHANKAR, SR. COUNSEL A/W SRI. M. LAVA, ADV.) - - -

THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T. ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 20.02.2015 PASSED IN ITA NO.1734/BANG/2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, PRAYING THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO: (I) FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE.

(II) ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ITAT, BANGALORE IN ITA NO.1734/BANG/2013 DATED 20-02-2015 CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER AND CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MANGALORE.

THIS ITA COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) has been preferred by the revenue. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment year 2010-11. The appeal was admitted by a bench of this Court vide order dated 01.03.2017 on the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that, unaccounted money, found during the search proceedings and explained as on money received, are eligible for deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Act?

(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the

circumstances of the case, that the Tribunal was right in holding that, transactions entered into, with the buyers of flats, are eligible for deduction, even though there is violation of the sub-Sections(e) and (f) of Section 80IB(10), on the ground that these transactions were entered into before the amendments to sub-Section (3) and (f) of Section 80IB(10)?

2.

For the reasons assigned by us in the order passed today in I.T.A.No.307/2015, the substantial questions of law are answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee.

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE

Sd/- JUDGE ss

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 →