Ita/14/2013 Of The Commissioner Of Income - Tax v. M/S. Mahaveer Marvel

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURUDATED THIS THE 2 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND| THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD ILT.A. NO.14 OF 2013 BE!TVW E 1.|THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAXC.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROADBANGALORE.C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROADBANGALORE. 2 |THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER,WARD-4(3), C.R. BUILDINGWARD-4(3), C.R. BUILDING QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. K.V.ARAVIND, ADV.,) AND: M/S. MAHAVEER MARVEL|NO.1, 24TH MAINMAHAVEER TOWERSJ P NAGAR, 6TH PHASEBANGALORE-5600 /8. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. A. SHANKAR, SR. ADV. A/W)SRI.M.LAVA, ADV.) THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T. ACT,1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 31.08.2017 PASSED IN [TA|NO.997/BANG/2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09,|PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO: (I) FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW.STATED THEREIN. (1) ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED31.08.7012.PASSEDBY|THE|LIAT,BANGALOREIN|LIANO.997/BANG/2011 CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE|COMMISSIONER AND CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE|INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(3), BANGALORE. THIS ITA COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,ALOK ARADHE J.,DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax)Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short)has been preferred by the revenue. The subject matterof the appeal pertains to the Assessment year 2008-09.The appeal was admitted by a bench of this Court videorder dated 23.01.2013 on the following substantialquestions of law:| (1)Wnetner the appellate authorities were|correct in holding that the assessee firmis eligible for deduction under Section|SOIB(10)Of|the[ncome-correct in holding that the assessee firmis eligible for deduction under Section|SOIB(10)Of|the[ncome- TOOOQOOOOQ00000000000000ax Act despthe fact that there was large. scaleviolationsand|deviations|CO thesanctioned pian of the local authority by|the assessee firm in carrying out the|“Housing Project” without appreciating|the fundamental! nature of the legis/ature for providing such relief? (iI)Wnetner the appellate authorities were|correct in construing that deviations andviolations committed by the assessee.while undertaking the housing project|ana yet to be paid compounding fee for|regularizing the default is fairly enough|to claim the deduction under Section|8OIB(10)withoutappreciatingtheintended structure of the_ legislativeprovisions of Section 80IB?_ 2.|For the reasons assigned by us in the orderpassed today in ITA No.13/2013, the substantialquestions of law are answered against the revenue andin favour of the assessee. In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby|dismissed. Sd/-—JUDGE. Sd/-—JUDGE. SS|