PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6 vs. M/S. SKYLINE CONSTRUCTION & HOUSING PVT. LTD.,

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD I.T.A. NO.186 OF 2017 BETWEEN: 1. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6

BMTC COMPLEX, KORAMANGALA

BANGALORE. 2. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1)

BMTC BOMPLEX

KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE.

... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. E.I. SANMATHI, ADV.) AND: M/S. SKYLINE CONSTRUCTION & HOUSING PVT. LTD., NO.11, HAYES ROAD BANGALORE-560025 PAN: AAHCS 0232N. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K.R. PRADEEP, ADV.) - - - THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T.ACT, 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 04-11-2016

2 PASSED IN ITA NO.562/BANG/2011, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, PRAYING TO: I. DECIDE THE FOREGOING QUESTION OF LAW AND/OR SUCH OTHER QUESTIONS OF LAW AS MAY BE FORMULATED BY THE HON'BLE COURT AS DEEMED FIT. II. SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 4.11.2016 PASSED BY THE ITAT, 'A' BENCH, BENGALURU, IN ITA NO.562/BANG/2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AS SOUGHT FOR IN THIS APPEAL. AND TO GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF AS DEEMDT FIT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Mr.E.I.Sanmathi, learned counsel for the revenue has entered appearance through video conferencing. Mr.K.R.Pradeep, learned counsel for the assessee. 2. This appeal under Section 260-A 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 2006-07. The appeal was admitted by a Bench of this Court vide order 05.11.2018 to consider the following substantial question of law:

3 Whether on the facts an in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in allowing the proportionate claim to the assessee company under section 80IB(10) without appreciating the fact that the assessee had built 12 pent houses each exceeding 1,500 sq.ft. as a part and parcel of the residential project, thus, violating the basic condition of affordable housing project? 3. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the substantial question of law framed in this appeal has already been answered against revenue by this Court vide judgment dated 22.09.2020 in ITA No.54/2013. The aforesaid aspect of the matter could not be disputed by the learned counsel for the revenue. 4. In view of the reasons assigned by us in ITA No.54/2013, the substantial question of law framed in

4 this appeal is answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE RV