Uday S. Jagtap v. All The Five Appeals Are Dismissed. No Order As To Costs

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1599 OF 2016ALONG WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NOS. 1600 OF 2016, 1602 OF 20161606 OF 2016 AND 1611 OF 2016 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-29 .. Appellant v/s. M/s. Abhilasha Combines .. Respondent Mr. Arvind Pinto a/w Mr. N.C. Ranganayakulu for the appellant None for the respondent CORAM : AKIL KURESHI & M.S. SANKLECHA, J.J. P.C. DATED : 6[th] FEBRUARY, 2019 1.These Appeals under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961(the Act) challenge the common order dated 29[th] October, 2015 passedby the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). The commonimpugned order relates to Assessment Years 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09. 2.The identical question of law presented by the Revenue before usin all five appeals are as under :- “Whether in law and on the facts of the instant case, was theTribunal right in holding that the project was eligible for deductionu/s 80IB(10) when the commercial area constructed was 3920square feet in excess of the area as specified in Section 80IB(10)(d) ? 3.Mr. Pinto, learned Counsel appearing in support of the appealsvery fairly points out that this issue now stands concluded against theRevenue and in favour of the respondent assessee by the decision of theApex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. SarkarBuilders, 375 ITR 392. In the above case, it has been held thatintroduction of clause (d) to Section 80IB(10) of the Act w.e.f. 1[st] April,2005 would not apply to the projects, approved prior to 1[st] April, 2005.In the above view, the question as proposed does not give rise to anysubstantial question of law. Thus, not entertained. 4.All the five appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs. (M.S. SANKLECHA, J.) (AKIL KURESHI, J.)