Iapl/142/2011 Of Commissione Of Income Tax Ghaziabad v. M/S Shipra Estate Ltd

Court No. - 35Case :- INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 142 of 2011Appellant :- Commissione Of Income Tax, GhaziabadRespondent :- M/S Shipra Estate Ltd.Counsel for Appellant :- C.S.C. I.T.,Manish Goel,Manu GhildyalCounsel for Respondent :- Swapnil KumarHon'ble Bharati Sapru,J.Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J. This is an appeal filed by the department under section 260Aof the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of Tribunaldated 3.12.2010 for the assessment year 2004-05. Thequestions of law sought to be answered by this Court are hereunder; "1. Whether ITAT could have interpreted the provisions of 80 IB (10) so as to includecommercial units/ buildings also as has been done in the present case. 2. Whether the Hon'ble ITAT was correct in law and on facts by allowing deduction u/s80IB(10) in respect of sub projects of Shipra River Project namely Brahmputra Kaveri,Amrawati and Damodar amounting to Rs. 1,24,94,322/- because these sub projects are thepart of the main project of Shipra River project in which the construction and developmentwork was started before 1.10.1998. 4. Whether the Hon'ble ITAT was correct in law and on facts by allowing deduction u/s80IB(10) in respect of the part of the project treating it as separate project, while approval ofthe wile project and construction was started prior to the 1.10.1998." These very questions have already been answered in favour ofthe department and against the assessee inter parties in IncomeTax Appeal No. 284 of 2010 by a judgement and order dated2.1.2018 whereby the Court has come to the conclusion thatthe assessee failed to satisfy the conditions for the grant ofbenefit under section 80 IA(4F). For ready reference, therelevant part of the order dated 2.1.2018 is quoted herein; "In view of the fact that the development and construction of the housing project are integralto each other and as the filling or levelling of the earth of the projects which is part ofdevelopment had commenced prior to 1.10.1998, it would be deemed that the developmentand construction had commenced prior to 1.10.1998. Thus, the respondent assessee failed tosatisfy the third condition for grant of benefit under Section 80 IA (4F) read with Section 80IA (5) and 80 IB (10) of the Act. Accordingly, the tribunal was not justified in granting thebenefit of Section 80 IA (4F) read with Section 80 IA (5) and 80 IB (10) of the Act. Thequestion is answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee." In view of above, the questions of law are answered in favourof the revenue and against the assessee. The appeal isaccordingly, allowed.