SRI M N MANOHAR vs. SRI AUGUSTINE D' LIMA

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL 2021 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL I.T.A. NO.269 OF 2015 BETWEEN: 1. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

(CENTRAL) CENTRAL REVENUE

BUILDINGS QUEENS ROAD

BANGALORE-560001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, ADV.,) AND: M/S. SOBHA DEVELOPERS 'SOBHA' SARJAPUR, MARATHALLI ORR, DEVARABEESANAHALLI BANGALORE PAN:AABCS7723E. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. A. SHANKAR, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. M. LAVA, ADV.,) - - - THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SEC. 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 09.01.2015 PASSED IN ITA NO.1410/BANG/2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008- 09, PRAYING TO:

2 (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 09-01-2015 PASSED BY THE ITAT, 'A' BENCH, BANGALORE, IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS IN ITA NO.1410/BANG/2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AS SOUGHT FOR IN THIS APPEAL, AND TO GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF AS DEEMED FIT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR 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 2008-09. The appeal was admitted by a bench of this Court vide order dated 22.02.2016 on the following substantial questions of law: "(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the assessee is entitled for deduction under Section 80IB of the I.T. Act in respect of profit on sale and development of land not owned by assessee even when the assessee had only carried out

3 construction activity and conditions set out said section are not satisfied by assessee? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the action of the assessing authority in allocating common overhead expenses on the ratio of turnover of the projects to the total turnover of the assessee in the absence of separate accounts for individual projects is without basis and assessee had deliberately so as to bring down the taxable income?". 2. For the reasons assigned by us in the judgment passed today in I.T.A.No.383/2010, this appeal also stands dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE ss