PRAJAPAI CONSTRUCTION LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT 7(1), MUMBAI
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) which followed the Supreme Court decision in Liberty India. The CIT(A) had decided against the assessee regarding the deduction claimed under section 80IB for miscellaneous charges.
What were the facts?
The assessee did not appear for the hearing despite receiving multiple notices. The appeal was filed against an order passed under section 143(3) read with section 263 of the Act. The assessee also failed to furnish the relevant assessment order.
What were the issues?
Whether the deduction under section 80IB for miscellaneous charges is allowable. Whether the appeal is maintainable due to defective filing.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Liberty India v. CIT571 citing317 ITR 218 · 2009 · SC · Read judgment
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench, Mumbai
O R D E R Per B.R. Baskaran, AM :-
The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 27.8.2012 passed by learned CIT(A)-20, Mumbai and it relates to A.Y. 2003- 04.
None appeared on behalf of the assessee even though the notice of hearing was sent to the assessee on more than one occasion. Hence, we proceed to dispose of the appeal ex parte, without presence of the assessee.
We heard learned Departmental Representative and perused the record. We noticed that learned CIT(A) has passed the order against the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) read with section 263 of the Act. We further notice that the assessee has filed assessment order dated 28.11.2005, which was passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act, meaning thereby, he has failed to furnish relevant assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act. Hence the appeal filed by the assessee is defective and the same has not been rectified so far.
2 Prajapati Constructions Ltd.
We further notice that the grounds urged in the appeal relates to deduction claimed u/s. 80IB of the Act in respect of miscellaneous charges collected by it. We notice that learned CIT(A) has followed the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India (317 ITR 218) to decide the issue against the assessee. Since learned CIT(A) has followed the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court, we do not find any reason to interfere with his order. Accordingly we confirm the order passed by learned CIT(A).
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order has been pronounced in the Open Court on 6.6.2016.
More judgments on Section 263
- Gillette India Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, JaipurITA 1316/JPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Vimal Harilal Baldania, Gandhidham vs The ITO Ward 2, GandhidhamITA 770/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1493/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1492/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Basant Kumar Gupta vs. Union Of INDIAPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- M/S Swapnashiyana Homes Developers Private Limited vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- M/S B.K. Agency Under The Proprietor Of Bhola Prasad vs. The Chief Commissioner, CGSTPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- Shree Hanumant Steel Traders vs. Assistant CommissionerChhattisgarh · 1 Nov 2026
- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026