Ita/120/2015 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. Pvs Apartments

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC &THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE 2015/26TH JYAISHTA, 1937 ITA.No. 120 of 2015 () ----------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 345/COCH/2014 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 21-11-2014 APPELLANT(S)/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/REVENUE: ------------------------ THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOZHIKODE. BY ADVS.SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, INCOME TAX DEP SRI.K.M.V.PANDALAI, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE: ---------------------------- M/S. PVS APARTMENTS, YMCA ROAD, KOZHIKODE. THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON16-06-2015, ALONG WITH I.T.A.122/15 and CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THESAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPELLANTS' EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE A: COPY OF ASST. ORDER DT.28.2.2013.ANNEXURE B: COPY OF CIT(A)'S ORDER DT.28.4.2014.ANNEXURE C: ORDER OF THE ITAT, KOCHI DATED 21.11.2014. /TRUE COPY/ PS TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC & SHAJI P. CHALY, JJ.-----------------------------------I.T.A.Nos.120, 122, 123 & 124 of 2015 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 16[th] day of June, 2015JUDGMENT Antony Dominic, J. 1.These appeals are filed by the Commissioner of IncomeTax, Kozhikode challenging the orders passed by theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Benchdismissing ITA.Nos.345 to 349 of 2014 filed by theRevenue.Tax, Kozhikode challenging the orders passed by theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Benchdismissing ITA.Nos.345 to 349 of 2014 filed by theRevenue. 2.We heard the standing counsel for the appellant andconsidered the submissions made.considered the submissions made. 3.The respondent assessee is a company engaged in realestate business. The company constructed 4 towerswith various flats in a plot of land having an extentof 1.67 acres. For these 4 towers, the company hadobtained separate building permits in accordance withthe provisions of the Kerala Municipality BuildingRules. Deduction under section 80 1B of the IncomeTax Act was denied to the company on the ground thatthe extent of the land in which the project has beenundertaken did not satisfy the minimum prescribedestate business. The company constructed 4 towerswith various flats in a plot of land having an extentof 1.67 acres. For these 4 towers, the company hadobtained separate building permits in accordance withthe provisions of the Kerala Municipality BuildingRules. Deduction under section 80 1B of the IncomeTax Act was denied to the company on the ground thatthe extent of the land in which the project has beenundertaken did not satisfy the minimum prescribed area of one acre. That view taken by the AssessingOfficer was set aside by the Commissioner of IncomeTax (Appeals) and the Tribunal confirmed that order.This is the background in which these appeals arefiled by the Revenue. 4.The benefit of section 80 1B(10)(b) could be availedwhen the extent of the plot where the project isundertaken has a minimum area of one acre. In so faras this case is concerned, as we have already stated,4 towers were constructed by the respondent and thebenefit of the section has been denied dividing thetotal extent of 1.67 acres into 4 and treating theproportionate extent as the extent of the plot whereeach of the towers were constructed. In our view,this approach of the Assessing Officer is totallyuntenable. The project of the assessee consists of 4towers and these 4 towers were constructed in a plotof land, the extent of which is 1.67 acres. Thatsatisfies the requirement of the section. That beingthe situation, the benefit of section 80 1B(10)(b)could not have been denied by dividing the land by ITA.120/15 & con. cases the number of the towers constructed. Therefore, wefully concur with the view taken by the Tribunal. Appeals fail and are therefore dismissed. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge. Sd/- SHAJI P. CHALY, Judge. kkb.