Case LawHigh Court › The Commissioner Of Income Taxcentral Ci...

The Commissioner Of Income Taxcentral Circle, Chennai v. M/S.siddarth Foundations & Housing Limited14, Old

High Court 14 Nov 2014 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · hc_cis_mas
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Taxcentral Circle, Chennai v. M/S.siddarth Foundations & Housing Limited14, Old
Date of order
14 Nov 2014
Assessment year(s)
2004-05
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In The Commissioner Of Income Taxcentral Circle, Chennai v. M/S.siddarth Foundations & Housing Limited14, Old, the High Court (2014) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Issue: For Appellant For Respondent : Mr.M.Swaminathan Standing Counsel for Income Tax: Mr.R.Sivaraman--------- J U D G M E N T(Delivered by R.SUDHAKAR,J.) This Tax Case (Appeal) filed by the Revenue as against the orderof the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was admitted by this Court onthe following substan...

Decision: Hence, following the above-said decision of this Court, theabove Tax Case (Appeal) is dismissed and the order of the Tribunalstands confirmed.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

Sections referenced in this judgment

The order — as passed by the High Court

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated: 14.11.2014 Coram The Honourable Mr.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKARandThe Honourable Mr.JUSTICE R.KARUPPIAH Tax Case (Appeal) No.780 of 2013 The Commissioner of Income TaxCentral Circle, Chennai. .... Appellant Vs. M/s.Siddarth Foundations & Housing Limited14, Old No.124/1,G.N.Chetty Road, T.Nagar, Chennai - 17. .... Respondent APPEAL under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act against theorder dated 23.09.2011 made in I.T.A.No.2193/Mds/2010 on the file ofthe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'B' Bench for the assessment year2004-05. For Appellant For Respondent : Mr.M.Swaminathan Standing Counsel for Income Tax: Mr.R.Sivaraman--------- J U D G M E N T(Delivered by R.SUDHAKAR,J.) This Tax Case (Appeal) filed by the Revenue as against the orderof the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was admitted by this Court onthe following substantial question of law: " Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case, the Tribunal was right in holding that theassessee is doing works contract and the assessee iseligible for deduction under Section 80IB(10) which isagainst the provisions?" 2. The assessment in this case relates to the assessment years2004-05. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. The issue involved in this Tax Case (Appeal) that whetherthe assessee is entitled for deduction under Section 80IB(10) of theIncome Tax Act has already been decided by this Court in T.C.(A)Nos.581 & 582 of 2011 and 314 & 315 of 2012 dated 01.11.2012 infavour of the assessee and against the Revenue holding that for thepurpose of considering the deduction, it is not necessary that theassessee, engaged in developing and construction of housing project,should be the owner of the property. 4. Hence, following the above-said decision of this Court, theabove Tax Case (Appeal) is dismissed and the order of the Tribunalstands confirmed. No costs. sl-s/d- Assistant Registrar(Records) Dt:28/11/2014 True Copy Sub-Assitant RegistrarTo1. The Assistant Registrar The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, "B" Bench, Sastri Bhavan, Chennai.2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) V, Chennai– 600 034.3. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle VI(3), Chennai.4. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Chennai.+ 1 cc to Mr.R.Saravanan, Advocate SR 55031+ 1 cc to Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar, Advocate SR 54599tej(Co)prk8/12T.C.(A) No.780 of 2013
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan