Itta/236/2013 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iii v. Vitp Private Limited

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTISENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO.236 OF 2013 DATED:10.7.2013 Between: Commissioner of Income Tax-IIIIT Towers, AC GuardsMasab TankHyderabad … Appellant And VITP Private LimitedThe V, Admin., Block Mariner, Plot No.17Software Units Layout,MadhapurHyderabad … Respondent THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTISENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI I.T.T.A. NO.236 OF 2013 JUDGMENT:(per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This appeal is intended to be admitted on the followingsuggested question of law. “In the facts and circumstances of the case,whether the Tribunal (ITAT) is correct in law in holdingthat the rent received by the respondent – assessee fromM/s. Ascendas Property Management Services (India)Limited forms part of operation and maintenance ofindustrial park and the respondent – assessee is eligiblefor the deduction under Section 80IA of the Act, when therent received by the respondent - assessee cannot beattributable to its industrial activity and the subjectpremises were not notified by the CBDT for the purposeof benefit under Section 80IA(4) of the Act?” This appeal is sought to be preferred against the judgment andorder of the learned Tribunal dt.28.6.2012, in relation to assessmentyear 2007-08. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant andcarefully gone through the impugned judgment and order of thelearned Tribunal. There has been a fact finding that administrative building is partof common facilities for providing a space to M/s.Ascendas formaintenance and management of the industrial park. The learnedTribunal has found that there has been a misreading of the provision ofSection 80IA(4)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The learned Tribunal has also found thatprovision of Section 80IA of the Act does not provide any scope forinterpreting that deduction under Section 80IA(4)(iii) of the Act shall berestricted to income derived from the allocable area only. Under thesecircumstances, when the fact finding has been made by the Tribunal,and law has been applied on the basis of the fact finding, this Court, inexercise of its power under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act,cannot entertain the appeal, on a pure question of fact and correctapplication of law. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ ______________________ G. ROHINI, J 10.7.2013 bnr