PCIT v. Kumar Builders Consortium (Bombay High Court)

By CA Nikhil Gupta · Judgment date: 2022-07-18 · Bombay High Court

High CourtOperative order controlsPUBLISH_READY

Important disclaimer

Finin2min Judgment Intelligence is provided for general informational and educational purposes only. It is not legal, tax, accounting, investment or other professional advice and is not a substitute for advice on the user's specific facts. The Finin2min summary, Q&A, reliance profile, fact-match indicators, comparisons and practical takeaways are editorial analysis and are not part of the Court/Tribunal judgment. Before citing, filing, advising or acting on a case, read the complete official judgment/order, verify the cause title, case number, coram, date, applicable statutory text and jurisdiction, and check subsequent appellate history, review/SLP status and later amendments. A similar fact pattern does not guarantee the same outcome. No advocate-client, CA-client or other professional relationship is created by use of this page.

Source status: Sanitized readable full judgment copy packaged; the exact issuing-court primary record remains pending. Open packaged judgment PDF. This indexed page retains explicit official-source and later-history disclosures for reliance checks.

Case in 2 minutes

S. 80IB(10) : Housing projects-Two flats excess of the prescribed limit of 1500 sq.ft.-Pro rata deduction in respect of eligible flats not exceeding prescribed limit is eligible-Interpretation of taxing Statutes-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] 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…

Result: Operative order controls. The controlling text is the reasoning and operative order in the packaged judgment, not this editorial summary.

Case snapshot

Court / TribunalBombay High Court

Case numberTAX APPEAL NO. 82 OF 2018

Decision date2022-07-18

Assessment yearAY 2011-12

Coramthe CIT(A) by the

OutcomeOperative order controls

Sections / provisions: 80IB(10)

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

S. 80IB(10) : Housing projects-Two flats excess of the prescribed limit of 1500 sq.ft.-Pro rata deduction in respect of eligible flats not exceeding prescribed limit is eligible-Interpretation of taxing Statutes-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] 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…
What factual, statutory and procedural conditions control the relief?
How does the operative order apply to the parties and the challenged proceeding?

JUDGMENT-GROUNDED CASE RECORD

Material facts and procedural background

The Pr. Commissioner of Income } Tax- 4, Pune, 3rd Floor, Room No. } 322, Bodhi Tower, Salisbury Park, } Gultekdi, Pune – 411 037. } .. Appellant

Kumar Builders Consortium, 10th } Floor, Kumar Business Centre, Bund } Garden, Opp. Pune Central, Pune- } 411 001. } .. Respondent **** Mr. Suresh Kumar, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. Jitendra Jain a/w Mr. Sameer G. Dalal, Advocate for the Respondent. **** CORAM : DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR AND ABHAY AHUJA, JJ.

of the order impugned, the ITAT, while allowing the appeal of the assessee

The assessee is a frm engaged in the business of developing

A.O. also noted that the assessee had failed to complete the project by 31 st

Appellant / assessee submissions

6. Mr. Samir G. Dalal, learned Counsel for the Respondent, however,

8. The argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant

that interpretation at all. Learned Counsel for the appellant would have

Revenue / respondent submissions

The packaged judgment does not separately label the respondent's submissions in an independently extractable passage. No contention is inferred; read the full order.

Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning

The reasoning is integrated into the packaged record. Read it with the facts, statutory text and operative directions; this editorial article does not invent missing reasons.

Operative decision and relief

assessee. The appeal was allowed vide order dated 18 th August, 2014,

20. The view taken by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Income -tax Appellate Tribunal is quite consistent with the view taken by the High Court of Madras, Delhi and Karnataka. It was pointed out that even the special leave petition against the Madras High Court’s decision was dismissed by the Supreme Court. Accordingly, there is no good ground to interfere with the view taken by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal on the issue of proportionate deduction, at the instance of the Revenue.”

Official source and later-history control

Primary record: OFFICIAL_PRIMARY_SEARCH_PENDING

Later-history status: REVIEW_APPEAL_SLP_CHECK_PENDING

High Court review, intra-court appeal where applicable, and Supreme Court SLP/appeal history remain to be closed.

Release decision: Published with a sanitized local judgment copy and explicit source disclosure; official-primary retrieval and later-history surveillance remain open. Checked 2026-08-11; page is published as index,follow with these limitations disclosed.

FININ2MIN ANALYSIS

Ratio and legal principle

The packaged judgment addresses S. 80IB(10) : Housing projects-Two flats excess of the prescribed limit of 1500 sq.ft.-Pro rata deduction in respect of eligible flats not exceeding prescribed limit is eligible-Interpretation of taxing Statutes-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] 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…. The precise proposition must be read with the Court/Tribunal's reasoning and operative directions.
Reliance depends on matching the statutory version, jurisdiction, procedural stage and material evidence recorded in the judgment.

Why this judgment matters

This decision is relevant to practitioners and affected parties dealing with s. 80ib(10) : housing projects-two flats excess of the prescribed limit of 1500 sq.ft.-pro rata deduction in respect of eligible flats not exceeding prescribed limit is eligible-interpretation of taxing statutes-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] 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… Its value lies in showing how the adjudicating forum connected the applicable rule to the proved facts and procedural posture.

Practitioner action points

Match the statutory version, jurisdiction, procedural stage and decisive evidence before relying on the result.
Verify current appellate, review and SLP history and any later amendment or controlling authority.
Attach the complete judgment to the working paper or filing and cite the paragraph/page supporting the proposition.

Can I rely on this judgment?

Authority level	High Court
Source integrity	Sanitized readable full judgment copy packaged; issuing-court primary pending
Repository release	PUBLISH_READY
Reliance rule	Verify current history and cite the judgment's narrow proposition, not the editorial headnote.

Does this case match your facts?

Stronger match when

The same primary issue is raised.
The same statutory version and jurisdiction apply.
The procedural stage and burden of proof are comparable.
The material documentary record is substantially similar.

Weaker / distinguishable when

A later higher-court ruling changes the position.
The statutory provision or relevant period differs.
The evidence or procedural chronology is materially different.
A defect decisive here was cured in the user's case.

Questions this judgment answers

What was the main dispute in PCIT v. Kumar Builders Consortium (Bombay High Court)?

Which facts matter most?

The Pr. Commissioner of Income } Tax- 4, Pune, 3rd Floor, Room No. } 322, Bodhi Tower, Salisbury Park, } Gultekdi, Pune – 411 037. } .. Appellant

What did the Bombay High Court decide?

What legal principle can be taken from the judgment?

The packaged judgment addresses S. 80IB(10) : Housing projects-Two flats excess of the prescribed limit of 1500 sq.ft.-Pro rata deduction in respect of eligible flats not exceeding prescribed limit is eligible-Interpretation of taxing Statutes-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] 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…. The precise proposition must be read with the Court/Tribunal's reasoning and operative directions. Reliance depends on matching the statutory version, jurisdiction, procedural stage and material evidence recorded in the judgment.

Which provisions should be checked?

80IB(10)

When is the case most useful?

When the user's facts raise the same issue - S. 80IB(10) : Housing projects-Two flats excess of the prescribed limit of 1500 sq.ft.-Pro rata deduction in respect of eligible flats not exceeding prescribed limit is eligible-Interpretation of taxing Statutes-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] 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… - at a comparable procedural stage and under the same statutory version.

What could distinguish the case?

Different evidence, jurisdiction, statutory period, procedural chronology, or later controlling authority can materially change the result.

Can it be cited without another current-law check?

No. Read the packaged judgment and verify current appellate/review/SLP history, statutory amendments and jurisdiction before citation or advice.