Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 1]

Madras High Court

The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S.Siddarth Foundations & Housing ... on 14 November, 2014

Bench: R.Sudhakar, R.Karuppiah

       

  

  

 
 
 In the High Court of Judicature at Madras

Dated:  14.11.2014

Coram

The Honourable Mr.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR
and
The Honourable Mr.JUSTICE R.KARUPPIAH

Tax Case (Appeal) No.780 of 2013

The Commissioner of Income Tax
Central Circle, Chennai.
										....  Appellant 
						
		Vs.

M/s.Siddarth Foundations & Housing Limited
14, Old No.124/1,
G.N.Chetty Road, T.Nagar, 
Chennai - 17.
										....  Respondent

	APPEAL under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act against the order dated 23.09.2011 made in I.T.A.No.2193/Mds/2010 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'B' Bench for the assessment year 2004-05.

For Appellant 			:  Mr.M.Swaminathan
					    Standing Counsel for Income Tax

For Respondent 			:   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 order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was admitted by this Court on the following substantial question of law:

" Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is doing works contract and the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80IB(10) which is against the provisions?"

2. The assessment in this case relates to the assessment years 2004-05.

3. The issue involved in this Tax Case (Appeal) that whether the assessee is entitled for deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Income 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 in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue holding that for the purpose of considering the deduction, it is not necessary that the assessee, 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, the above Tax Case (Appeals) are dismissed and the order of the Tribunal stands confirmed. No costs.

Index   :Yes/No							(R.S.,J)	(R.K.,J) Internet:Yes/No								14.11.2014
sl

To
1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, "B" Bench, Chennai.
2. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) V, Chennai 600 034.
3. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle VI(3),
   Chennai.


































R.SUDHAKAR,J.
AND          
R.KARUPPIAH,J.


sl












T.C.(A) No.780 of 2013


















14.11.2014