DCIT, Bangalore V. M/s Skyline Construction & Housing Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

ITA 561/BANG/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9288 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 5 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 01-11-2016
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 13-05-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: G R REDDY CITIDR
• Assessee Lawyers: K R PRADEEP

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.561 & 562/BANG/2011 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2005-06 & 2006-07 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), BANGALORE. VS. M/S. SKYLINE CONSTRUCTION & HOUSING PVT. LTD., NO.11, HAYES ROAD, BANGALORE 560 025. PAN: AAHCS 0232N APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI G.R. REDDY, CIT-I(DR) RESPONDENT BY : SHRI K.R. PRADEEP, CA DATE OF HEARING : 01.11.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04.11.2016 O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER THESE APPEALS ARE PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AGAINS T 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 TH E I.T. ACT CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO THE PROJECTS, IF ONE OF THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS EX CEEDS 1500 SQ.FT. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE APPEALS, TH E LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS INVITED OUR ATTENTION THAT THE CIT(APP EALS) HAS ADJUDICATED ITA NOS.561 & 562/BANG/2011 PAGE 2 OF 3 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 HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA. COPY OF TH E JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IS PLACED ON RECORD, IN WHICH TH E FOLLOWING QUESTION WAS REFERRED TO THE HONBLE HIGH COURT FOR CONSIDERATIO N:- 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 DESPIT E THE ASSESSEE NOT SATISFYING THE CONDITIONS STIPULATED IN CLAUSES (A) TO (D) OF SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT? 3. THE QUESTION REFERRED TO THE HONBLE HIGH COURT WAS ANSWERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. 4. 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(APP EALS). ACCORDINGLY, WE CONFIRM THE SAME. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 04 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2016. SD/- SD/- ( S. JAYARAMAN ) (SUNIL KUMAR YA DAV ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDIC IAL MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 04 TH NOVEMBER, 2016. /D S/ ITA NOS.561 & 562/BANG/2011 PAGE 3 OF 3 COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, BANGALORE.