The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Central-1 v. M/S.Ajmera Housing Corporation (Pune)

3.ITXA.1606.14.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1606 OF 2014 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-I ..Appellant Vs.

M/s Ajmera Housing Corporation (Pune) ..Respondent ....

Mr. Suresh Kumar, Advocate for Appellant.

Ms. Vsanti Patel, Advocate for Respondent.

....

CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA & N.M. JAMDAR, JJ.

DATED : 3 AUGUST 2015 P.C.:

This appeal filed by the revenue challenges the order dated 3 April 2014 by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the 'Tribunal') for the Assessment Year 2006-07.

2.

The revenue urges the following question of law for our consideration:

"Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in deciding that the assessee is eligible for deduction u/s. 80IB(10), without considering the fact that even as per the amended provision, which was brought into the S.S.DESHPANDE 1 / 2

3.ITXA.1606.14.odt I.T. Act w.e.f. 01.01.2005 and applicable to A.Y. 200506, commercial construction of a maximum of only 2001 sq. ft. was permitted in a residential project whereas the residential project of the assesee consisted of commercial area of 5201 sq. ft. making the assessee ineligible for the deduction u/s. 80IB(10) of the I.T. Act?"

3.

We find that the impugned order of the Tribunal has followed the decision of this Court in CIT Vs. Brahma Associates1. It is fairly submitted by Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for revenue's appeal against the order in Brahma Associates has been dismissed by the Supreme Court. Further the issue also now stands concluded against the revenue by the decision of Apex Court in CIT Vs. Sarkar Builders2.

4.

In view of the above, the question as formulated does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Accordingly appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.

[N.M. JAMDAR, J] [M.S. SANKLECHA, J.]

1. 333 ITR 289

2. 375 ITR 392 S.S.DESHPANDE 2 / 2