The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central-1, Mumbai v. M/S Puravankara Projects Ltd
High Court
21 Sep 2023 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central-1, Mumbai v. M/S Puravankara Projects Ltd
Date of order
21 Sep 2023
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central-1, Mumbai v. M/S Puravankara Projects Ltd, the High Court (2023) decided the matter under Section 80IB of the Income-tax Act.
Decision: The exactsame question was raised in the case of Kumar Builders (supra)and answered against the Revenue and in favour of the Assessee.In these circumstances, and in light of the decision given in KumarBuilders (supra), we dismiss the above Appeals.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
ANJALIDigitally signed byANJALI TUSHARTUSHARASWALEDate: 2023.09.21ASWALE18:50:00 +0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1289 OF 2013WITHINCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1378 OF 2013WITHINCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1695 OF2013WITHINCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1481 OF 2013WITHINCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1403 OF 2013WITHINCOME TAX APPEAL NO.2004 OF 2013
The Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-1, Mumbai
..Appellant
Versus
M/s Puravankara Projects Ltd
..Respondent
Mr.P. C. Chhotaray, Advocates for the Appellant.
Mr.Rajeev Waglay i/b DSR Legal, Advocatesfor theRespondent.
CORAM: B. P. COLABAWALLA, J & M. M. SATHAYE, JJ.DATE: SEPTEMBER 21, 2023
P.C.
In all the above Appeals, by order dated 9[th] April,2015, the question of law framed by this Court was as under:-
“Whether on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case and in law, the Hon’ble Income TaxAppellate Tribunal was justified in directing theAssessing Officer to allow the claim ofdeduction u/s.80IB(10) made by the assessee
on pro rata basis without appreciating the factthat the provisions of section 80IB(10) clearlymandate that the assessee can be either eligibleor not eligible for claiming deduction and theprovisions do not contemplate anyproportionate deduction?”
2When these Appeals are called out, it has beenbrought to our attention that the question of law as framed, iscovered by a decision of this Court in the case of PrincipalCommissioner of Income Tax-4 V/s. Kumar BuildersConsortium reported in [(2022) 447 ITR 44]. The exactsame question was raised in the case of Kumar Builders (supra)and answered against the Revenue and in favour of the Assessee.In these circumstances, and in light of the decision given in KumarBuilders (supra), we dismiss the above Appeals. However, thereshall be no order as to costs.
3This order will be digitally signed by the PrivateSecretary/ Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will acton production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of thisorder.
[M. M. SATHAYE, J.]
[ B. P. COLABAWALLA, J ].
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.