Ita/665/2015 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Narayan Builders

IN THR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATRD THIS THE 31 DAY OF MARCH 2016 PRESENT THR HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL AND THR HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.665/2015C/WINCOME TAX APPEAL Nos.666/2015&6667/201 IN ITA NO.665/2015 BETWEEN: 1.THR COMMISSIONER OF [INCOMBE-TAX! FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING,80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGAL,BANGALORE — 560 095.! FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING,80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGAL,BANGALORE — 560 095. ? THERE INCOME-TAX OFFICERWARD-6(3)RASHTROTHANA BHAVANNRUPATHUNGA ROAD|BANGALORE-560 OO1WARD-6(3)RASHTROTHANA BHAVANNRUPATHUNGA ROAD|BANGALORE-560 OO1 _. APPKBLLANTS (BY SRI.K.V.ARAVIND, STANDING COUNSEL) AND: M/S. NARAYAN BUILDERS|NO.101/104, 1ST FLOOR|SESHADRIPURAMBANGALORE-560 O20PAN: AAKEKM 4280C —. RBSPONDBENT THIS INCOMB TAX APPKAL IS FILED UNDERSEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF|ORDERDATED:08/05/2015PASSEDIN-ITA|NO. 11(9/BANG/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-2008PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS|OF LAW STATKD ABOVE AND ALLOW THR APPEAL ANDSETASIDETHERORDERSPASSEDBY|THE.ITAT,|BENGALURUIN|ITA|NO.|119/BANG/2014|DATED:08/05/2015 AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THEAPPBLLATK COMMISSIONBR CONFIRMING THR ORDER|PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(3),|BBNGALURU. IN ITA NO.666/2015 BETWEEN: 1.THR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX_![‘T]FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING,![‘T]FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGAL,|BANGALORE — 560 095..BANGALORE — 560 095.. ? THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD-6(3) RASHTROTHANA BHAVAN) NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE-560 OO]_. APPELLANTS (BY SRI.K.V.ARAVIND, STANDING COUNSEL) AND: M/S. NARAYAN BUILDERSNO.101/104, 1ST FLOORSKHSHADRIPURAMBANGALORE-560 O20PAN: AAKKM 4280C_ RESPONDENT THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS. FILED UNDERSEC.2600-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUTOF ORDER DATED:08/05/2015 PASSED IN ITA NO.780/BANG/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-2009 PRAYING TO FORMULATRKR THR SUBSTANTIAQUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE AND ALLOW)THR APPEAL AND SBHT ASIDE THR ORDERS PASSEDBYTHEITAT,BRENGALURUIN|ITANO.780/BANG/2014 DATED:08/05/2015 AND CONFIRMTHR ORDBR OF THR APPBLLATR COMMISSIONER|CONFIRMING THR ORDER PASSBD BY THR INCOME|TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(3), BENGALURU. IN ITA NO.667/2015 BETWEEN: 1.THR COMMISSIONBR OF INCOME-TAX_ ! FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGAL,|BANGALORE — 560 O95. BANGALORE — 560 O95. a2THR INCOMB-TAX OFFICER WARD-6(3) RASHTROTHANA BHAVAN) NRUPATHUNGA ROADBANGALORE-560 OO]BANGALORE-560 OO] _. APPELLANTS (BY SRILK.V.ARAVIND, STANDING COUNSEL) AND: M/S. NARAYAN BUILDERSNO.101/104, 1ST FLOORSKHSHADRIPURAMBANGALORE-560 O20PAN: AAKKM 4280C _ RESPONDENT THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS. FILED UNDERSEC.2600-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUTOF ORDER DATED:08/05/2015 PASSED IN ITA NO.781/BANG/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-2011 PRAYING TO FORMULATEK THE SUBSTANTIALQUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE AND ALLOW.THR APPEAL AND SBHT ASIDE THR ORDERS PASSEDBYTHEITAT,BENGALURU|IN|ITANO.781/BANG/2014 DATED:08/095/2015 AND CONFIRMTHR ORDBR OF THR APPBLLATR COMMISSIONER|CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE [INCOMETAX OFFICER, WARD-6(3), BENGALURU. THESK APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THISDAY,JAYANT PATEL J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMBNT These appeals are preferred by appellant-Revenue by raising the following substantial question of law: “Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal isright in law in directing the assessingauthority to give deduction under SectionSOIB(10) of the Act if the assessee has completed construction when the assessee|had failed to file audit report in Form —1OCCB along with the completion certificate|obtained from the Local Authority showingthe completionot construction|oT the building/apartment as required under thelaw.TO claimdeductionunder|sectionSOIB(10) of the Act”? 2. We have heard Mr.Aravind K.V., learnedCounsel appearing for appellant-Revenue in theseappeals. THESK APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THISDAY,JAYANT PATEL J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMBNT These appeals are preferred by appellant-Revenue by raising the following substantial question of law: “Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal isright in law in directing the assessingauthority to give deduction under SectionSOIB(10) of the Act if the assessee has completed construction when the assessee|had failed to file audit report in Form —1OCCB along with the completion certificate|obtained from the Local Authority showingthe completionot construction|oT the building/apartment as required under thelaw.TO claimdeductionunder|sectionSOIB(10) of the Act”? 2. We have heard Mr.Aravind K.V., learnedCounsel appearing for appellant-Revenue in theseappeals. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants fairlyconcedes that the very same question in respect of thevery assessee pertaining to separate assessment yearcame to be considered in ITA 478/195 @& ITA 641/15 anthis Court vide order dated 29.29.2015 dismissed theappeals. Hence, the question can be said as covered bysaid decision. *���9�;=/@�?5�17?;/"�?9�:./�710=0�?5�:./�01D/�4/10?90"�:./�24/0/9:�122/130�130?�6/0/4;/�:?�7/�6=0D=00/6�196�:./4/5?4/"�6=0D=00/6��� �H)� ������ �!�� ������ �!��