Be Applied To Projects Which Have Been Sanctionedafter 01.04.2005.?” v. Raviraj Kothari Punjabi Associates In Incometax Appeal

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 2026 OF 2013 The Commissioner of Income Tax-II..AppellantVs.M/s V.J. Associates..Respondent ..Respondent .... Mr. Suresh Kumar, Advocate i/b Vipul Bajpayee for Appellant.Mr. Mihir Naniwadekar, Advocate for Respondent. .... P.C.: CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA & G.S. KULKARNI, JJ.DATED : 27 OCTOBER 2015 This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act,1961 (the 'Act'), challenges the order dated 5 October 2012 passedby the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the 'Tribunal') for theAssessment Year 2006-07. 2.The revenue has formulated the following question of lawfor our consideration: “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case,the Tribunal erred in holding that the clarification ofthe built-up area introduced by way of section80IB(14)(a) with effect from 01.04.2005 can only be applied to projects which have been sanctionedafter 01.04.2005.?” 3.The impugned order of the Tribunal is a common orderpassed for the Assessment Years 2006-07 and 2007-08. Therevenue had filed an appeal being Income Tax Appeal No.1579/2013 against the common order of the Tribunal for theAssessment Year 2007-08. This Court did not entertain the appealfor the Assessment Year 2007-08 by order dated 27 July 2015on agreed position of the parties that the controversy standsconcluded in favour of the respondent-assessee by the decision ofthis Court in CIT Vs. Raviraj Kothari Punjabi Associates in IncomeTax Appeal No. 1628/2013 rendered on 24 April 2015. For thesame reason as above, the question as proposed in this appeal alsostands concluded against the revenue. 4.In view of the above, the proposed questions of law doesgive rise to any substantial question of law, hence not entertained. 5.Accordingly, appeal is dismissed. [G.S. KULKARNI, J][M.S. SANKLECHA, J.]