Itxa/1421/2012 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax -I, Thane v. M/S. Vastusankalp Developers

srk *1* IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONINCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1421 OF 2012 Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Thane -Versus-M/s. Vastusankalp Developers ..Appellant ..Respondent Mr. Suresh Kumar for the appellant-revenue.Mr. Rahul Hakani with Mr. Rahul R. Sada for the respondent-assessee. CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARIAND A.K. MENON, JJ. DATE :- 8[th] October, 2014 P.C.: This appeal by the revenue challenges the order passed by the Income tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Bench dated 31[st] May, 2012 in Income Tax Appeal No.6758/Mum/2010 and Cross Objection No.186/Mum/2011. The assessment year is 2007-08.2.The claim of deduction is under section 80IB(10) of the Income tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short). 3.Mr. Suresh Kumar, appearing on behalf of the revenue submits that the impugned order raises a substantial question of law because the construction project was undertaken phase-wise. If the Transferable Development Rights ('TDR' for short) were not available, then, the assessee should not have claimed the deduction and on the footing that the buildings have been constructed and the construction was complete in both phases. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be admitted. 4.We are unable to agree with Mr. Suresh Kumar. The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) as also the Tribunal concurrently found that the assessee has not claimed any deduction under this provision insofar as construction carried out by availing of TDR. He has also claimed the deduction in respect of construction of buildings and which may be under Phase-I. Since the assessee has been held to be eligible for the deduction by both the CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal and the reasons assigned by the Tribunal at page 6 of the impugned order being essentially based on facts that we are of the opinion that the appeal does not raise any substantial question of law. The findings of fact cannot be termed as perverse or vitiated by any error of law apparent on the phase of the record. 5. The appeal is devoid of merits and is, therefore, dismissed. (A.K. MENON, J.) (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)