Ita/197/2011 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Primal Projects (P) Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10 DAY OF NOVEMBER 2070. PRESENT| THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND| THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD BETWEEN: LT.A. NO.197 OF ZO11 1.|COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX| CENTRAL CIRCLE, C.R. BUILDING QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE. 2.|DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE. (BY SRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, ADV.,) .., APPELLANTS~ AND* M/S. PRIMAL PROJECTS (P) LTD.,.NO.97/B, I FLOOR, 6TH BLOCKKORAMANGALA, BANGALORE. (BY SRI. PAVAN KUMAR, ADV., FOR| SRI. S. PARTHASARATHI, ADV.,) ... RESPONDENT| THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T. ACT,|1961L ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 28.02.20L1 PASSED IN ITANO.1298/BANG/2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09,PRAYING TQ: (1) FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW.STATED THEREIN.» (11) SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 28.02.2011|PASSED BY THE ITAT, B BENCH, BANGALORE IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS ITA NO.1298/BANG/2010, AS SOUGHT FOR INTHIS APPEAL, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS|ITACOMING|ONFOR.HEARING,THISALOK ARADHE J.,DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: | DAY, | JUDGMENT This appeal under Section 260A of the Income TaxAct, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short)nas 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 27.03.2012 on the following substantial|questions of law:| (1) Whether the Tribunal was correctin law In allowing assessees appeal by|nolding that the assessee is eligible for|deduction under section 80IA(4)(iil) of the|I.T. Act, 1961 even when the assessee has|failed to satisfy the conditions put forth tnthe said provision. (11) Whether the Tribunal was correctin law to allow the Geduction Under section|8OIA(4)(iii) of the I.T. Act, 1961 when the| assessee had not fulfilled the conditionsenvisaged by the Government of India as|well as those Included in the Industrial! ParkScheme, 2002 and therefore contravened|the provisions of Rule 18C(3) of the|[ncome-Tax Ru/es?| (iii) WhetherOf)thefacts|and|circumstances of the case, the _ Tribunaerred in law in interpreting the intentions ofthe legislation to promote large number ofindustrial units in the Industrial Park, by|holding that the five floors leased to asinglecompanywouldconstitutefive|independent Industrial units and satisfy thecriteria mentioned in para i1(vii) of theapproval letter issued by the Ministry of|Commerce and Industry. (iV) Whether the Tribunal was correct’In|law.In|interpretingIndustrialParkScheme, 2002 by holding that the four.floors leased out to a single entity wouldconstitute five separate taxable entities andtherefore the assessee had not violated the|condition that no single unit shall occupy| more than 50% of the allocable industrial|area of an [Industrial Park. (v) Whether the Tribunal was correctin law to allow the deduction under section|SOIA of the [.T. Act when the assessee had|constructed only 4,04,710/- Sq.ft. instead|of the required area of 5,24,406.68 Sq.ft.and therefore hed not fulfilled the condition|laid out in the approval granted by the.Ministry of Commerce and notification fromMinistry of Finance. (vi) Whether the Tribunal was correct’in law to allow the deduction under section|SOIA of the I.T. Act on sale of built up areain| Industrial Park wnen tne assessee nadnot satisfied the condition of required|number of units at the time of sale of built.up area in an Inaustrial park. 2 |We have considered the submissions made.by learned counsel for the parties and have perused therecord. For the reasons assigned in the judgmentdelivered by us today in_ I.T7T.A.No.196/2011, t substantial questions of law framed by a bench of this.court are answered against the revenue and in favour ofthe assessee. In the result, the appeal fails and is.hereby dismissed. Sd/-JUDGE. SS| Sd/-—JUDGE.