Ita/228/2014 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. Mahaveer Tuscan

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 LT.A. NO.228 OF 2014 BETWEEN: 1.THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAXC.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROADC.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE. 2.THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER,WARD-4(3), C.R. BUILDINGQUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE.WARD-4(3), C.R. BUILDINGQUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE. .., APPELLANTS (BY SRI.K.V.ARAVIND, ADV.,) AND: M/S. MAHAVEER TUSCANNO.1, 24TH MAIN.MAHAVEER 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,196L ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 20.12.2013 PASSED IN ITA]NO.67/BANG/2013FOR.THE|ASSESSMENT|YEAR2009-10,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 ORDERS)PASSED BY THE ITAT, BANGALORE IN ITA NO.67/BANG/2015|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 2009-10.The appeal was admitted by a bench of this Court videorder dated 02.09.2014 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 Income-Tax Act despitethe fact that tnere was large scale|violationsand|deviations|CO thesanctioned plan of the local authority by|the assessee firm in carrying out the|“Housing Project” without appreciating|the fundamental! nature of the legis/aturefor providing such relief?correct in holding that the assessee firmis eligible for deduction under Section|SOIB(10) of the Income-Tax Act despitethe fact that tnere was large scale|violationsand|deviations|CO thesanctioned plan of the local authority by|the assessee firm in carrying out the|“Housing Project” without appreciating|the fundamental! nature of the legis/aturefor providing such relief? (iI)Whether the appellate authorities were|correct in construing that deviations andviolations committed by the assessee.while undertaking the housing project|and yet to be paid compounding fee for|regularizing the default is fairly enougpnto claim the deduction under Section|8OIB(10)withoutappreciatingtheintended structure of the _ legislativprovisions of Section 8O0IB?correct in construing that deviations andviolations committed by the assessee.while undertaking the housing project|and yet to be paid compounding fee for|regularizing the default is fairly enougpnto claim the deduction under Section|8OIB(10)withoutappreciatingtheintended structure of the _ legislativprovisions of Section 8O0IB? 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|