The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 4965 (Karn-HC)

INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

Section 80-IA(U)(iii)

Since assessee had applied for non-automatic approval under paragraph 7 of Industrial Parks Scheme, 2002, therefore, requirement contained in paragraph 6(f), which required a unit not to occupy more than 50% of allocable area did not apply to the case of assessee and, therefore, assessee was entitled to benefit of deduction under section 80-IA(4)(iii).

Deduction under section 80-IA(4)(iii) - Applicability of requirement contained in paragraph 6(f) of Industrial Parks Scheme, 2002 - Assessee applied for non-automatic approval under paragraph 7 of Industrial Parks Scheme, 2002 -

Assessee engaged in development of Information Technology Parks and similar infrastructure facilities claimed deduction under section 80-IA(4)(iii). AO disallowed claim of assessee on the ground that assessee had not complied with mandatory conditions stipulated in the scheme framed by Central Govt., viz., Industrial Parks Scheme, 2002. AO held that five software companies were not located at the time of sale of built-up area and one unit was occupying more than 50% of industrial area, which was in violation of mandatory conditions mentioned in the scheme. Held: Since assessee had applied for non-automatic approval under paragraph 7 of Industrial Parks Scheme, 2002, therefore, requirement contained in paragraph 6(f), which required a unit not to occupy more than 50% of allocable area did not apply to the case of assessee and, therefore, assessee was entitled to benefit of deduction under section 80-IA(4)(iii).

Relied:Syeda Rahimunnisa v. Malan Bi By L.Rs. & Ors. (2016) 10 SCC 315 and Pr. CIT, Bangalore & Ors. v. Softbrands India (P) Ltd. (2018) 406 ITR 513 (Karn) : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 3520 (Karn-HC).

REFERRED :

FAVOUR : In assessee's favour.

A.Y. : 2007-08



IN THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

SUBSCRIBE TaxPublishers.inSUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT