Ita/269/2015 Of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Sobha Developers

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURUDATED THIS THE 5 DAY OF APRIL 20271 PRESENT| THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND| THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL|LT.A. NO.269 OF 2015 BETWEEN: 1.|PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX| (CENTRAL) CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDINGS QUEENS ROAD. BANGALORE-560001. 2 |THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), BANGALORE.| .., APPELLANTS~ (BY SRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, ADV.,) AND* M/S. SOBHA DEVELOPERS‘SOBHA SARJAPUR, MARATHALLIORR, DEVARABEESANAHALLI|BANGALORE.PAN: AABCS / /23 ~. RESPONDENT (BY SRI. A. SHANKAR, SR. COUNSEL FOR. SRI. M. LAVA, ADV.,) THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SEC. 260-A OF INCOME TAX|ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 09.01.2015 PASSEDIN ITA NO.1410/BANG/2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, 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 09-01-2015.PASSED BY THE ITAT, A BENCH, BANGALORE, IN APPEALPROCEEDINGS IN ITA NO.1410/BANG/2013 FOR ASSESSMENTYEAR 2008-09 AS SOUGHT FOR IN THIS APPEAL, AND TO GRANTSUCH OTHER RELIEF AS DEEMED FIT, IN THE INTEREST OF.JUSTICE. THIS I.7T.A. COMING ON FOR’ HEARING, THIS’ DAY, |ALOK ARADHE J.,DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: | JUDGMENT This appeal under Section 260A of the Income TaxAct, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short)has been preferred by the revenue. The subject matter|of the appeal pertains to the Assessment year 2008-09.The appeal was admitted by a bench of this Court videorder dated 22.02.2016 on the following substantial|questions of law:| “(1) Whether on the facts and in the.circumstances of tne case, the Tribunal Iscorrect in law in holding that the assessee isentitied for deduction under Section 80IB ofthe I.T. Act in respect of profit on sale anddevelopment of land not owned by assesseeeven when the assessee had only carried out construction activity and conditions set outsaid section are not satisfied by assessee? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the.circumstances of the case, the Tribunal Iscorrect in law in holding that the action of.the assessing authority in allocating commonoverhead expenses on the ratio of turnoverof the projects to the total turnover of the.dSSCSSCECIn|theabsenceofseparateaccounts for individual projects is without.basis and assessee had deliberately so as tobring down the taxable income?’. 2 |For the reasons assigned by us in thejudgment passed today in I.T.A.No.383/2010, thisappeal also stands dismissed. Sd/-JUDGE. SS| Sd/-— JUDGE.