Ita/186/2017 Of Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-6 v. M/S. Skyline Construction & Housing Pvt. Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2070.PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND| THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD1T.A. NO.186 OF 2017 BEITWEEN 1.PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6. BMTC COMPLEX, KORAMANGALA BANGALORE. 2D.DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1) BMTC BOMPLEX KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE. (BY SRI. E.I1. SANMATHI, ADV.) _.. APPELLANTS AND M/S. SKYLINE CONSTRUCTION& HOUSING PVT. LTD.,|NO.11, HAYES ROAD|BANGALORE-560075PAN: AAHCS O0232N. (BY SRI. K.R. PRADEEP, ADV.) ... RESPONDENT THIS I.T.A. IS. FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OFI.T.ACT, 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 04-11-2016 PASSED IN ITA NO.562/BANG/2011, FOR THE ASSESSMENTYEAR 2006-07, PRAYING TO: I. DECIDE THE FOREGOING QUESTION OF LAW AND/ORSUCH OTHER QUESTIONS OF LAW AS MAY BE FORMULATEDBY THE HON BLE COURT AS DEEMED FIT.| LL.SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 4.11.20L0.PASSED BY THE ITAT, A BENCH, BENGALURU, IN ITANO.562/BANG/2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 ASSOUGHT FOR IN THIS APPEAL. AND TO GRANT SUCH OTHERRELIEF AS DEEMDT FIT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,|ALOK ARADHE J.,DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Mr.E.I.Sanmathi, learned counsel for the revenue has entered appearance through video conferencing. Mr.K.R.Pradeep, learned counsel for the assessee. 2. This appeal under Section 260-A of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, forShort) has been preferred by the revenue. The subject|matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment Year 2006-07. The appeal was admitted by a Bench of this.Court vide order 05.11.2018 to consider the following|substantial question of law: WhetherOf)thefactsaf)In|thecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal was—justified in allowing the proportionate claim to the assessee company under section 80IB(10)without appreciating tne fact that the assesseeNad built 12 pent nouses eacn exceeding 1,500sq.ft. as a part and parcel of the residential|project, thus, violating tne basic condition ofaffordable housing project? 3. When the matter was taken up today, learned|counsel for the assessee submitted that the substantial|question of law framed in this appeal has already been.answered against revenue by this Court vide judgment.dated 22.09.2020 in ITA No.54/2013. Tne aforesaid.aspect of the matter could not be disputed by thejiearned counsel for tne revenue. 4. In view of the reasons assigned by us in ITANo.54/2013, the substantial question of law framed in. ��������������������������������������������������������������������������� "�������������������������������������������������������� ������������ ����������� *+�