Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central-Ii, Mumbai v. M/S Haware Engineers & Builders Pvt. Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1691 OF 2013 Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-II, Mumbai ..Appellant Vs. M/s Haware Engineers & Builders Pvt. Ltd...Respondent .... Mr. Ashok Korangale, Advocate i/b Padma Divakar for Appellant.Mr. Mihir Naniwadekar, Advocate for Respondent. .... P.C.: CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA & N.M. JAMDAR, JJ.DATED : 3 AUGUST 2015 This appeal by revenue challenges the order dated 4 April2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the 'Tribunal')in respect of the Assessment Year 2007-08. 2.Following question of law are proposed by revenue forour consideration: “1.Whether, on the facts and circumstancesof the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified inholding that the deduction u/s. 80IB(10) of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 is admissible to a Housing Project on the size of two plots of land togethermaking minimum area of one acre, when clause (b)of Section 80IB(10) of the Act prescribes that theproject should be on the size of the land which has aminimum area of one acre? 2.Whether, on the facts and circumstancesof the case and in law the Tribunal was justified inholding that the deduction u/s.80IB(10) of the Actis admissible to a Housing Project comprising ofresidential and commercial units?” 3.Mr. Korangale, the learned Counsel appearing for revenuevery fairly states that the impugned order of the Tribunal hasfollowed its orders dated 4 May 2012 for the Assessment Years2005-06 and 2006-07. Being aggrieved, the revenue had filed twoappeals in respect of the order dated 4 May 2012 for each of thetwo Assessment Years i.e. 2005-06 (Income Tax Appeal No.164/2013) and 2006-07 (Income Tax Appeal No. 1668/2012).This Court by orders dated 4 December 2014 and 9 January 2015 inrespect of Income Tax Appeal Nos. 1668/2012 and 164/2013respectively were not entertained as it did not give rise to anysubstantial question of law. S.S.DESHPANDE 4.In view of the above, following the above two orders ofthis Court, we find no substantial question of law arising for ourconsideration in this appeal. 5.Accordingly, appeal is dismissed. [N.M. JAMDAR, J] [M.S. SANKLECHA, J.]