DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S SKYLINE CONSTRUCTION & HOUSING PVT. LTD., BANGALORE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s order, confirming that the assessee was entitled to the deduction. This decision was based on a previous Tribunal ruling that was subsequently approved by the jurisdictional High Court.
What were the facts?
The revenue appealed against the CIT(Appeals)'s decision to grant relief under Section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act. The core dispute was whether the assessee met the conditions for this deduction, specifically regarding the size of residential units.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee satisfied the conditions stipulated in Section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act for claiming deduction, particularly concerning the size of residential units.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV & SHRI S. JAYARAMAN
Per Sunil Kumar Yadav, Judicial Member
These appeals are preferred by the revenue against the order of CIT(Appeals) on the common ground that the CIT(Appeals) has failed to appreciate the fact that relief u/s. 80IB(10) of the I.T. Act cannot be allowed to the projects, if one of the residential units exceeds 1500 sq.ft.
During the course of hearing of the appeals, the ld. counsel for the assessee has invited our attention that the CIT(Appeals) has adjudicated the issue in the light of decision of the Tribunal in the case of Brigade Enterprises, 119 TTJ Bang 269. This order of the Tribunal was approved by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka. Copy of the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court is placed on record, in which the following question was referred to the Hon’ble High Court for consideration:- “Whether the Appellate Authorities were correct in holding that the assessee would be entitled to claim deduction u/s. 80IB(10) of the Act in respect of its Millennium project despite the assessee not satisfying the conditions stipulated in Clauses (a) to (d) of Section 80IB(10) of the Act?”
The question referred to the Hon’ble High Court was answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.
Since the CIT(Appeals) has adjudicated the issue following the order of the Tribunal which was later on approved by the jurisdictional High Court, we find no infirmity in the order of CIT(Appeals). Accordingly, we confirm the same.
In the result, the appeals are dismissed. 5.
Pronounced in the open court on this 04th day of November, 2016.
More judgments on Section 80IB(10)
- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax… vs Cosmos Constructions, ThaneITA 8234/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Sept 2026AY 2012-13
- ACIT-24(1), Piramal Chambers vs Atul Properties, MumbaiITA 8043/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: Disposed17 Aug 2026AY 2013-14
- ACIT-24(1), Mumbai, Piramal Chambers vs Atul Properties, MumbaiITA 8042/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: Disposed17 Aug 2026AY 2012-13
- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax… vs Cosmos Enterprises, ThaneITA 8209/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: Disposed14 Aug 2026AY 2010-11
- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax… vs Cosmos Enterprises, ThaneITA 8208/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: Disposed14 Aug 2026AY 2009-10
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S South INDIA Trading Company vs. Additional Commissioner Adjudication CGST Delhi North & Anr.Delhi · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Rishi Stonex vs. The State Of Assam And 5 OthersGauhati · 13 Oct 2026
- Gopal Datt vs. Vishal Kumar SharmaUttarakhand · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Do Nam Enterprise And Anr vs. The Union Of INDIA And 2 OrsGauhati · 13 Oct 2026
- M Sundaravel vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Central GST And Central ExciseMadras · 13 Oct 2026