High CourtsDivision Bench(2015) 01 BOM CK 0059

Commissioner of Income Tax vs Moti Udharam Panjabi

Bombay High Court · Decided on 8 January 2015

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.P. Deshmukh, J. · S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.
CASE NUMBER
Income Tax Appeal No. 1696 of 2012

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 375 words
1.

We have heard Mr. Vimal Gupta, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue. We have also perused the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and particularly the portion where the Tribunal discusses the entitlement of deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the applicability of the Rule 18BBB(2) of the Income Tax Rules.

2.

We are of the opinion that the Appeal raises substantial questions of law. It is admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

"(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in not appreciating the fact that the project was initially approved by the local authority on 08/08/1996 and commenced before 01/10/1998, whereas, for being eligible for the claim of deduction u/s. 80IB(10), the project was required to be first approved and commenced after 01/10/1998 in accordance with Explanation (i) to the said section.

(ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in not appreciating the fact that the so called Sector ''B'' of the project was on a land of less than an acre, whereas, for being eligible for claim of deduction u/s. 80IB(10) the project has to be on a land admeasuring of at least one Acre.

(iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in not appreciating the fact that the requirements of Rule 18BBB(2) were not complied in that the audit report was defective as pointed out by the CIT(A) in his order."

3.

Mr. Naniwadekar waives service on behalf of the respondent.

4.

The Registrar (Judicial)/Registrar, High Court, Original Side, Bombay to ensure that the original record in relation to this Appeal is summoned from the Tribunal and offered for inspection of the parties. This paper book is treated sufficient for the purpose of admission of this Appeal. However, the Registry must further ensure preparation of complete paper book in accordance with the Rules. The Registry in the first instance must send intimation of admission of this Appeal enclosing therewith a copy of this order so as to enable the Tribunal to act accordingly.