Tca/127/2016 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Arihant Foundations

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMYAND THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. ... Appellant/Appellant in both TCAs M/s.Arihant foundations & Housing Ltd.,271, Poonamallee High Road,Chennai – 600 010. .. Respondent/Respondent in both TCAs Appeals preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act,1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Madras, "A" Bench, dated 13.01.2012 in ITA.Nos.1326 &1327/Mds/2011 for the Assessment Years 2006-2007 & 2008-2009. Against the Order of the commissioner of Iincom Tax Appeals IIIChennai 600 034 dated 27.04.2011 in ITA No. 640/08-09A III inthe assessment year 2006-07. Against the order of the commissioner of Income Tax AppealsIII Chennai III Chennai 600 034 dated 15.04.2011 in ITA No.699/10-11/A III in the assessment year 2008-09.Against the order of the Deputy commissioner of Income Taxcompany circle I(i) Chennai 34 dated 30.12.2010 PA/GIR No. AAACA7402P/Ax-691 in the assessment year 2008-2009 & 2006-2007respectively. For Respondent : Mr. R.Sivaramanin both TCAs COMMON JUDGMENT (Common Judgment was delivered by M.DURAISWAMY, J.) We have heard Mr.T. Ravikumar, learned Senior StandingCounsel for the appellant/Revenue and Mr.R.Sivaraman, learnedcounsel for the respondent. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The appeals, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act) are directedagainst the orders dated 13.01.2012 made in ITA.Nos.1326 &1327/Mds/2011 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Chennai, "A" Bench (for brevity, the Tribunal) for theAssessment Years 2006-2007 & 2008-2009. 3. The appeals were admitted on the following substantialquestions of law:- “Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal was right in upholding theorder of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), who had allowed the claim of deductionunder Section 80IB(10), even though the assesseehas not furnished the completion certificate ofthe Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority,which is the competent Local Authority as perlaw? (ii) Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal was right in granting reliefunder Section 80IB(10), especially when theChennai Metropolitan Development Authority, videtheir letter dated 17.12.2008, clearly statedthat no completion certificate has been given tothe assessee in view of the unauthorizedconstruction and also due to the fact that theconstruction was not in accordance with theapproved plan and had forfeited the securitydeposit? (iii) Whether the approval issued by theCorporation of Chennai is valid for the projectsundertaken by the assessee, especially when theplan was sanctioned by the Chennai MetropolitanDevelopment Authority and not the Corporation? (iv) Whether the reasoning and the findingof the Tribunal is proper, especially when theplanning permit was issued for the ground floorplus four floors on 14.10.2003 by the ChennaiMetropolitan Development Authority, but theassessee had constructed stilt plus 11 floors andhad claimed deduction under Section 80IB(10) byviolating law? (v) Whether the Tribunal was right ingranting deduction under Section 80IB(10) based on the completion certificate issued by theCorporation of Chennai on 06.07.2009,especially when the assessee was to complete thehousing project on or before 31.03.2008? and (vi) Whether the Tribunal was right inupholding the orders of the Commissioner ofIncome Tax (Appeals) in restricting the additionto 5% of the dividend income under Section 14Aread with Rule 8D?” (v) Whether the Tribunal was right ingranting deduction under Section 80IB(10) based on the completion certificate issued by theCorporation of Chennai on 06.07.2009,especially when the assessee was to complete thehousing project on or before 31.03.2008? and (vi) Whether the Tribunal was right inupholding the orders of the Commissioner ofIncome Tax (Appeals) in restricting the additionto 5% of the dividend income under Section 14Aread with Rule 8D?” 4. The learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for theappellant submits that the above appeals are not pursued by theRevenue on account of the Low Tax Effect in terms of CircularNo.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 issued by the Central Board ofDirect Taxes. By the said Circular, the monetary limit forfiling or pursuing an appeal before the High Court has beenincreased to Rs.1 Crore. It is further submitted that the taxeffect in these cases are less than the threshold limit. 5. In the light of the said submissions, the above Tax CaseAppeals are dismissed as withdrawn on account of the Low TaxEffect. The substantial questions of law framed are left open.In the event the tax effect in these cases is above thethreshold limit fixed in the said Circular, liberty is grantedto the Revenue to make a mention to this Court to restore theappeals to be heard and decided on merits. No costs.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS IX) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar gv To1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai,600 090. 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals III.Chennai 600 034. 3.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Company circle I(i), Chennai 600 034.