Ita/392/2013 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iii v. M/S. Vaswani Estates Developers Pvt. Ltd

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE. Dated this the 27[th]day of June, 2014. PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N KUMAR ANTI THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B MANOHAR| ITA Nos. 392!393/13 BETWEEN: Ll.The Commissioner ot Income Tax-Ill Central Revenue Buildings, Queens Road, Bangalore 560 OO1. iaThe Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 12(5) . Appellants Bangalore. (By Sri E.I. Sanmathi, Adv.) AND: M/s. Vaswani Estates Developers Pvt. Ltd.,No.o2, Vittal Mallya Road, ...Respondent Bangalore — 560 OO1 These ITAs are filed under Section 260-A of I.T. Act, 1961arisingOutotorder.dated28.03.2013|passed1N ITA|No.1058/Bang/2011and|ITA|No.882/Bang/2011for.the p Assessment year 2006-07, praying to (i) formulate the substantial|questions of law stated therein; (11) set aside the common appellate,Order|OT the|ITAT,°A’Bench,Bangalore1n ITA|No.1058/Bang/2011and|ITANo.882/Bang/2011dated28.03.2013. These ITAs coming on tor admission this day,N. KUMAR Jdelivered the following: JU DBoGMENT The revenue has preferred this appeal against the order)passed by the Tribunal holding that the definition of built-up area|as inserted in sub-Section 14(a) of Section 80IB by Finance No.2)Act ot 2004 which came into effect from O1.04.2005 is notretrospective and it is prospective. The Tribunal has come to the|said conclusion relying on the judgment of this Court in the case.ofGR DEVELOPERS1|ITA No.355/2009|decided on|29.02.20122dwhere this Court on examination of the entire scheme of the Act,relevant provisions, came to the conclusion that the saidamendment by way of insertion is prospective in nature and it|applied only to such housing projects which are approvedsubsequent to 01.04.2005. Appeal preferred against the said|judgment is dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Therefore, 3 we do not see any error committed by the Tribunal in coming to|the said conclusion. 2.However, the Tribunal has remanded the matter back|to the Assessing Authority to examine, on the materials on record,whether the built up area of the impugned three flats is less than|1,500 sq. it. or not and thereafter, decide to give the benefit ofdeduction under Section 8O0IB(10) of the Act. In that view of the matter, we do not see any good ground toentertain this appeal. Ordered accordingly. (SD/-)JUDGE (SD/-)JUDGE VP