The concept of “super built-up” area is used by builders to get higher price and the super built-up area includes common area of stair-case and balcony area. Since super built-up area cannot be equated with built-up area it cannot be stated in the instant case that the area of the flat is more than 1500 sq. ft. There is no doubt that it is the housing project and it does not include any commercial premises. Built-up area is also defined in section 80-IB(14)(a). The words including projections and balconies were inserted with effect from 1st April, 2005 Finance Act of 2004. The question whether the definition of built up area with effect from 1st April, 2005 was prospetive or retrospective in nature has been considered by this Court in Income Tax Appeal No.3315 of 2010 between the Commissioner of Income-Tax-15, Mumbai vs. M/s.Tinnwala Industries which holds that this definition which has been brought on the statute book with effect from 1st April, 2005 would not apply to such projects which are completed prior to 1st April, 2005. There are no distinguishing features brought on record which calls for any interference. The tribunal view is a well reasoned and cannot be said to be perverse.
Related Posts:
- Anand Developers vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court) The decision in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd in fact, assists the case of the Petitioner rather than the Respondents. In this decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that it is the duty of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all primary relevant facts and once all primary facts…
- Macrotech Developers Limited vs. PCIT (Bombay High Court) The prosecution against the petitioner has been initiated under section 276-C(2) of the Act because of the delayed payment of the balance amount of the self-assessment tax. Such delayed payment cannot be construed to be a tax arrear within the meaning of section 2(1)(o) of the Act. Therefore such a…
- Experion Developers Pvt Ltd vs. ACIT (Delhi High Court) Whilst it is the settled position in law that the sanctioning authority is required to apply his mind and the grant of approval must not be made in a mechanical manner, however, as noted by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Prem Chand Shaw (Jaiswal) v Assistant…
- Blue Chip Developers (P) Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi) The Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-2, New Delhi while granting approval for issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Act in Column no. 12 has only mentioned that “YES”, which establish that the approving authority has given approval to the reopening of assessment in a mechanical manner without…
- Ventura Textiles Ltd vs. CIT (Bombay High Court) Concealment of particulars of income was not the charge against the appellant, the charge being furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. As discussed above, it is trite that penalty cannot be imposed for alleged breach of one limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act while penalty proceedings were initiated for breach…
- Tata Communications Ltd vs. UOI (Bombay High Court) Although the respondents purport to contend that proper procedure had been followed, record does not bear that there had been any communication made to the petitioner as to its submissions being not acceptable before or at the time of making the adjustment. Decisions in the cases of “A. N. Shaikh”,…
Leave a Reply