Ita/240/2015 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. S.n Builders And Developers

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURUDATED THIS THE /[TH|]DAY OF JANUARY 2071PRESENT| THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND| THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASW AMYI1T.A. NO.240 OF 2O15 BETWEEN: 1.|THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CR BUILDIGNS, QUEENS ROAD. BANGALORE. 2 |THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX | CIRCLE-4(1), BANGLAORE. _... APPELLANTS (BY MR. E.I. SANMATHI, ADVOCATE) AND* M/S. S.N. BUILDERS & DEVELOPERSSNN AGORA, RAJ LAKE VIEWNO.3761, 29TH MAIN|BIM II STAGE|NS PALYA MAIN ROADBANGALORE-506 0/76. (BY MR. A. SHANKAR, SR. COUNSEL FOR| MR. M. LAVA, ADV.,) .., RESPONDENT THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SEC. 260-A OF INCOME TAX|ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 03.12.2014 PASSEDIN ITA NO.1366/BANG/2013 AND 1/70/7/BANG/2013 FOR THASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, PRAYING TO: (1) DECIDE THE FOREGOING QUESTION OF LAW AND/OR-SUCH OTHER QUESTIONS OF LAW AS MAY BE FORMULATED BYTHE HON BLE COURT AS DEEMED FIT. (ii) SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 03-12-2014.PASSED BY THE ITAT, B BENCH, BANGALORE AS SOUGHT FOR IN-THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE'S CASE, IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS|IN ITA NO.1366/BANG/2013 AND ITA NO.1/70/7/BANG/2013 FOA.Y. ZOLO-L1LL THIS ILT.A. COMING ON FOR’ HEARING, THIS DAY, | ALOK ARADHE J.,DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: | JUDGMENT This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income TaxAct, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) has| been filed by the revenue. The subject matter of the appealpertains to the Assessment Year 2010-11. Tne appeal wasadmitted by a Bencn of this Court vide order dated|12.01.2016 on the following substantial question of law: “Whetner on the facts and circumstances ofthe case, the Tribunal ts right in holding that|assessee /s entitieqd for deduction Undersection 80IB(10) of the I.T. Act even wnen tneassessee has not satisfied the requirements ofthe said provision? | 3. The following additional substantial question of law was framed by order dated 07.01.2021: “Whether.Of)thefactsand.inthecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal Isrignt in law in nolding tnat ‘Project CompletionMetnod adopted by assessee requires to be|accepted as against Percentage Completion|Metnod applied by assessing authority by|relying upon its earlier decision in case ofassessee which nas been cnallenged before|thisHon bie Courtandwhenassessingautnority rightlyrecognizeaqIncomefor.purpose of tax by holding that advances are|recelvedbyadSSCSSCEaS|andwhenconstructions progresses resulting in profit to assessee?' 4. For the reasons assigned by us in ITA No.393/2014passed today, this appeal stands dismissed. Sd/-JUDGE Sd/-—JUDGE