IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1526/Bang/2024 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/s. Silicon Estates DCIT No.14, 6^th Floor, HM Geneva Central Circle-1(4)

House C.R. Building, No.1, Queens Cunningham Road Vs. Road Bengaluru 560052 Bangalore-560001 PAN NO :ABEFS6150N APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA No.1534/Bang/2024 Assessment Year : 2014-15 DCIT M/s. Silicon Estates Central Circle-1(1)(1) No.14, 6^th Floor, HM Geneva House Room No. 215, 2^nd Floor Cunningham Road Vs.

BMTC Building, Kormangala Bengaluru 560052 Bangalore – 560095 APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Sri Annamalai, A.R.

Respondent by : Sri Subramanian S., D.R.

Date of Hearing : 07.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 04.08.2025

O R D E R

PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

These cross appeals are filed against the order of ld.CIT(A)-11, Bangalore dated 15.06.2024 vide DIN: ITBA/APL/M/250/2024- 25/1065683453(1) passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) for the A.Y.2014-15.

2. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: - “1. The impugned order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - 11, Bengaluru, Karnataka passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the extent against the appellant is opposed to law, weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case.

2. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the provisions of section 80-IB(10)(e) and (f) inserted by Finance (No.2) Act 2009 w.e.f 01.04.2010 are prospective in nature w.e.f 01.04.2010 and consequently the appellant is entitled to full relief as claimed by the appellant under section 80-IB(10) of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in disallowing deduction under section 80-IB of the Act on a pro-rata basis in respect of the two flats allocated to Shri. Ramzan Ali Khan/RAK constructions (flat 1403 and flat 1503) and in respect of the two flats allocated to KAP(I) Projections and Constructions Pvt. Ltd. (flat 610 and 409) as alleged by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in the order on the facts and circumstances of the case.

4. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the appellant is entitled to deduction under section 80-IB(10) of the Act tothe extent claimed by the appellant for the impugned Assessment Year and no disallowance is warranted on the facts and circumstances of the case.

5. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) failed to consider the detailed written submission filed by the appellant in respect of the above issues on the facts and circumstances of the case.

6. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in not adjudicating the grounds of appeal vide Ground No. 7 and further erred in holding that it becomes academic and therefore need not be adjudicate and is treated as dismissed for statistical purpose on the facts and circumstances of the case.

7. The Appellant denies itself liable to be charged interest under Section 234B of the Act in respect of the extent of disallowance of deduction under section80-IB(10) of the Act confirmed by the learned Commissioner of Income-

tax (Appeals) on the facts and circumstance of the case.

8. The appellant craves for leave of this Hon'ble Tribunal, to add, alter, delete, amend or substitute any or all of the above grounds of appeal as may benecessary at the time of hearing.

9. For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of appeal, the appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed for the advancement of substantial cause of justice and equity.”

3. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: - 1) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) is right in law in relying upon the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional ITAT rendered in assessee's own case for AY 2013-14 even wh