HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A. NOs.600 AND 602 OF 2014 DATED:5.9.2014 I.T.T.A. No.600 of 2014 Between:
Commissioner of Income Tax-V I.T. Towers, A.C. Guards Hyderabad … Appellant And M/s.Cecon Builders D.No.1-10-74, Technopolis Suit T-201 Begumpet, Hyderabad … Respondent THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A. NOs.600 and 602 OF 2014 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) I.T.T.A. No.600 of 2014 This appeal is sought to be preferred and admitted on the following suggested questions of law.
i. “In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the Hon’ble Tribunal (ITAT) is correct in law in holding that the respondent-assessee is eligible for the deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, when the respondent-assessee violated the original plan approved and the approval of the plan is not in the name of the respondent- assessee?
ii. In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the Hon’ble Tribunal (ITAT) is justified in holding that the permission in the name of the respondent-assessee is not required for claiming deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?”
We have heard Mr. B. Narasimha Sarma, learned counsel for the appellant and gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal.
The learned Tribunal found that the assessee is otherwise eligible for deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and the Assessing Officer has not found out any reason to deny except that plans are not in the name of the assessee and that there is violation of the building plans which were regularized subsequently on 26.08.2010. On appreciation of the fact, the Tribunal found that assessee is entitled to the benefit under Section 80IB(10) of the Act. Hence, we do not find any element of law in this appeal.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
I.T.T.A. NO.602 OF 2014 In view of the dismissal of I.T.T.A. No.600 of 2014, we are of the view that this appeal is also required to be dismissed, as the issue raised therein is identical.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ SANJAY KUMAR, J 5.9.2014 bnr