Itta/600/2014 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-V v. M/S Cecon Builders

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABADFOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRAPRADESH PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTISENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A. NOs.600 AND 602 OF 2014 DATED:5.9.2014 I.T.T.A. No.600 of 2014 Between:Commissioner of Income Tax-VI.T. Towers, A.C. GuardsHyderabad … Appellant And M/s.Cecon BuildersD.No.1-10-74, Technopolis Suit T-201Begumpet, Hyderabad … Respondent THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTISENGUPTA ANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A. NOs.600 and 602 OF 2014 JUDGMENT:(per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) I.T.T.A. No.600 of 2014 This appeal is sought to be preferred and admitted on thefollowing suggested questions of law. i.“In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether theHon’ble Tribunal (ITAT) is correct in law in holding that therespondent-assessee is eligible for the deduction underSection 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, when therespondent-assessee violated the original plan approved andthe approval of the plan is not in the name of the respondent-assessee? ii.In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether theHon’ble Tribunal (ITAT) is justified in holding that thepermission in the name of the respondent-assessee is notrequired for claiming deduction under Section 80IB(10) of theIncome Tax Act, 1961?” We have heard Mr. B. Narasimha Sarma, learned counsel for theappellant and gone through the impugned judgment and order passedby the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal found that the assessee is otherwiseeligible for deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act,1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and the Assessing Officer hasnot found out any reason to deny except that plans are not in the nameof the assessee and that there is violation of the building plans whichwere regularized subsequently on 26.08.2010. On appreciation ofthe fact, the Tribunal found that assessee is entitled to the benefit under Section 80IB(10) of the Act. Hence, we do not find any elementof law in this appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order asto costs. I.T.T.A. NO.602 OF 2014 In view of the dismissal of I.T.T.A. No.600 of 2014, we areof the view that this appeal is also required to be dismissed, as theissue raised therein is identical. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order asto costs. ________________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ _______________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J 5.9.2014 bnr