P. Shyamaraju v. Keb, Bangalore[1996 Scc Online Kar622] 08.11.1996; [1996 Scc Online Kar622] 08.11.1996

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8 DAY OF MARCH 2021 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI I. T. A. NO.86 OF 2018 BETWEEN: 1. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 BMTC COMPLEX BMTC COMPLEX KORAMANGALA BENGALURU. BENGALURU. 2. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (OSD) CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4) BENGALURU . (BY SRI. SANMATHI E I., ADVOCATE) ...APPELLANTS AND: M/S ESTEEM ROYALE NO.32, 33 & 34, SNS CHAMBERS SANKEY ROAD, BANGALORE 560 080. PAN: AABFE 8209 J (BY SRI. A. SHANKAR SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. M LAVA, ADVOCATE) SRI. M LAVA, ADVOCATE) ….RESPONDENT THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX APPEAL ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 12.07.2017 PASSED IN ITA No.924/BANG/2016, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2010 PRAYING TO DECIDE THE FOREGOING QUESTION OF LAW AND/OR SUCH OTHER QUESTIONS OF LAW AS MAY BE FORMULATED BY THE HON'BLE COURT AS DEEMED FIT AND SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 12.07.2017 PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 'C' BENCH, BENGALURU IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS No. ITA No.924/BANG/2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, AS SOUGHT FOR IN THIS APPEAL; AND TO GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF AS DEEMED FIT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS ITA COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Mr. Sanmathi E. I., learned counsel for the Revenue. Mr. A. Shankar, learned Senior counsel for the assessee. 2. This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has been filed by the Revenue against the judgment dated 12.07.2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The appeal pertains to the assessment years 2008-09 and 2012-13. This appeal was admitted by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 08.04.2019, on the following substantial questions of law: "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in directing the Assessing Officer to allow deduction under Section 80IB(10) without observing the violation of Section 310 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, which directs the assessee to apply for completion certificate only after the project is completed: whereas it is evident from records that the assessee has submitted application for completion certificate on or before 31.03.2009 which is mandatory as per provisions of Section 80IB(10) of the Act.? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in applying the decision of this Court in the case of M/S ITTINA PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED., to the present case, wherein the facts are altogether different to the extent that in the case relied upon, the assessee got completion certificate from local Panchayat whereas no such certificate has been received by the assessee from any Local Authority?" 3. When the matter was taken up today, learned Senior counsel for the assessee submitted that the substantial questions of law involved in this appeal stands concluded against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee in view of the following decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, by the Bombay High Court and by this Court: (1) P. SHYAMARAJU VS. KEB, BANGALORE[1996 SCC ONLINE KAR622] 08.11.1996; [1996 SCC ONLINE KAR622] 08.11.1996; dated (2) CIT VS. HINDUSTAN SAMUH AWAS LIMITED[(2015) 377 ITR 150 (BOM)] dated 02.02.2015; [(2015) 377 ITR 150 (BOM)] dated 02.02.2015; (3) ACIT VS. MAJESTIC DEVELOPERSin ITA No.286/2018 dated 21.11.2019; and in ITA No.286/2018 dated 21.11.2019; and (4) ITO VS. NARAYAN BUILDERSin ITA No.478/2015 dated 29.02.2016. in ITA No.478/2015 dated 29.02.2016. 4. Learned counsel for the Revenue was unable to dispute the aforesaid submission. 5. For the reasons assigned in the aforesaid judgments, the substantial questions of law involved in this (1) P. SHYAMARAJU VS. KEB, BANGALORE[1996 SCC ONLINE KAR622] 08.11.1996; [1996 SCC ONLINE KAR622] 08.11.1996; dated (2) CIT VS. HINDUSTAN SAMUH AWAS LIMITED[(2015) 377 ITR 150 (BOM)] dated 02.02.2015; [(2015) 377 ITR 150 (BOM)] dated 02.02.2015; (3) ACIT VS. MAJESTIC DEVELOPERSin ITA No.286/2018 dated 21.11.2019; and in ITA No.286/2018 dated 21.11.2019; and (4) ITO VS. NARAYAN BUILDERSin ITA No.478/2015 dated 29.02.2016. in ITA No.478/2015 dated 29.02.2016. 4. Learned counsel for the Revenue was unable to dispute the aforesaid submission. 5. For the reasons assigned in the aforesaid judgments, the substantial questions of law involved in this appeal are answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. In the result, we do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. SD/- JUDGESD/- JUDGE RD