{"id":28611,"date":"2022-07-20T13:03:28","date_gmt":"2022-07-20T07:33:28","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/pcit-v-kumar-builders-consortium-bom-hc-www-itatonline-org\/"},"modified":"2023-03-22T20:12:42","modified_gmt":"2023-03-22T14:42:42","slug":"pcit-v-kumar-builders-consortium-bom-hc-www-itatonline-org","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/pcit-v-kumar-builders-consortium-bom-hc-www-itatonline-org\/","title":{"rendered":"PCIT v. Kumar Builders Consortium ( 2022) 447 ITR 44  \/ (2023) 290 Taxman 277 ( Bom)( HC). www.itatonline.org ."},"content":{"rendered":"<p>The assessee firm engaged in the business of developing residential projects in return . The assessee claimed deduction u\/s 80IB(10 ) of the Act . The Assessing Officer held that two flats were having an area in excess of the prescribed limit of 1500 sq. ft hence denied the deduction . On appeal the CIT(A) directed to allow the pro rata deduction in respect of eligible flats not exceeding prescribed limit of a covered area of 1500 sq.ft . On appeal by Revenue the Tribunal affirmed the order of the CIT(A) . On appeal to High Court by\u00a0 the Revenue , High Court affirmed the order of the Tribunal . Court\u00a0 relying on NelsonMotis v .UOI AIR 1992 SC 1981 held that it is well settled principle of interpretation of statues that when the language of a statute is unambiguous and admits of only one meaning, no question of construction of a statute then arises . ( AY. 2011 -12 )( ITA No. 82 of 2018 dt. 18 -7 -2022)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>S. 80IB(10) : Housing projects-   Two flats excess of the prescribed limit of 1500 sq.ft \u2013 Pro rata deduction in respect of eligible flats not exceeding prescribed limit is eligible \u2013 Interpretation of taxing Statutes &#8211;  When the language of a statute is unambiguous and admits of only one meaning, no question of construction of a statute then arises .[ S. 260A ] <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-28611","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-7rt","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28611","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=28611"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28611\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":33342,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28611\/revisions\/33342"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=28611"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=28611"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=28611"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}