ACIT v. Bombay Real Estate Developers Co. Pvt. Ltd.

64 DTR 137Reported decision2011#11787 most cited
9

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2021.

Judgments citing ACIT v. Bombay Real Estate Developers Co. Pvt. Ltd.

ASST CIT CIR 16(1), MUMBAI vs. GAYATRI FILMS & MUSIC P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1193/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri T.S. Khalsa, D.R
Section 2(22)(e)

…Tribunal C Bench • CIT v. National Travel Service ITA 219 of 2010 Delhi HC • CIT v. Impact Containers Pvt. Ltd. ITA 114 of 2012 (Bombay HC) • N S N Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. 57 Taxmann.com 113 Bombay HC • ACIT v. Bombay Real Estate Development Co. Pvt. Ltd. (2011) 64 DTR 137 (Mum)Trib. 4 M/s. Gayatri Films & Music Pvt. Ltd. • K N Patel v. DC of IT Ahmedabad Trib. Respectfully following the above judgments and considering the facts of the case, the Assessing Officer is directed to delete the addition of^ 5,37,46,284/- made u/s.2(22)(e) of the I.T. Act, 1961." It is seen that my Ld. Predecessor has considered the hold…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S OZONE PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes and those of Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3772/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: A.Y. 2008-09
Section 14ASection 80I

…able was on the Assessing officer, which he failed to discharge while making the adhoc addition. Reliance is placed on the decision in the case of S.K. Engineering vs. JCIT, 103 ITD 97 (Bang. Tribunal) and ACIT vs. Bombay Real Estate Developers Co. Pvt. Ltd. (64 DTR 137) and Anurag Agarwal vs. ACIT, ITA No. 497/Agra/2015. In alternate, the ld. Counsel ITA Nos. 2935, 2936 & 2937 and 3770, 3771 & 3772/Del/2015 28 submitted that in case any addition is sustained on this head, the enhanced profit of eligible unit may be considered for deduction u/s. 80IC in terms of Circular No. 37/2016 dated 02.11.2016. 36. We hav…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S OZONE PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes and those of Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3771/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: A.Y. 2008-09
Section 14ASection 80I

…able was on the Assessing officer, which he failed to discharge while making the adhoc addition. Reliance is placed on the decision in the case of S.K. Engineering vs. JCIT, 103 ITD 97 (Bang. Tribunal) and ACIT vs. Bombay Real Estate Developers Co. Pvt. Ltd. (64 DTR 137) and Anurag Agarwal vs. ACIT, ITA No. 497/Agra/2015. In alternate, the ld. Counsel ITA Nos. 2935, 2936 & 2937 and 3770, 3771 & 3772/Del/2015 28 submitted that in case any addition is sustained on this head, the enhanced profit of eligible unit may be considered for deduction u/s. 80IC in terms of Circular No. 37/2016 dated 02.11.2016. 36. We hav…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S OZONE PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes and those of Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3770/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: A.Y. 2008-09
Section 14ASection 80I

…able was on the Assessing officer, which he failed to discharge while making the adhoc addition. Reliance is placed on the decision in the case of S.K. Engineering vs. JCIT, 103 ITD 97 (Bang. Tribunal) and ACIT vs. Bombay Real Estate Developers Co. Pvt. Ltd. (64 DTR 137) and Anurag Agarwal vs. ACIT, ITA No. 497/Agra/2015. In alternate, the ld. Counsel ITA Nos. 2935, 2936 & 2937 and 3770, 3771 & 3772/Del/2015 28 submitted that in case any addition is sustained on this head, the enhanced profit of eligible unit may be considered for deduction u/s. 80IC in terms of Circular No. 37/2016 dated 02.11.2016. 36. We hav…

M/S. OZONE PHARMACEUTICAL LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes and those of Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2937/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: A.Y. 2008-09
Section 14ASection 80I

…able was on the Assessing officer, which he failed to discharge while making the adhoc addition. Reliance is placed on the decision in the case of S.K. Engineering vs. JCIT, 103 ITD 97 (Bang. Tribunal) and ACIT vs. Bombay Real Estate Developers Co. Pvt. Ltd. (64 DTR 137) and Anurag Agarwal vs. ACIT, ITA No. 497/Agra/2015. In alternate, the ld. Counsel ITA Nos. 2935, 2936 & 2937 and 3770, 3771 & 3772/Del/2015 28 submitted that in case any addition is sustained on this head, the enhanced profit of eligible unit may be considered for deduction u/s. 80IC in terms of Circular No. 37/2016 dated 02.11.2016. 36. We hav…

M/S. OZONE PHARMACEUTICAL LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes and those of Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2936/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: A.Y. 2008-09
Section 14ASection 80I

…able was on the Assessing officer, which he failed to discharge while making the adhoc addition. Reliance is placed on the decision in the case of S.K. Engineering vs. JCIT, 103 ITD 97 (Bang. Tribunal) and ACIT vs. Bombay Real Estate Developers Co. Pvt. Ltd. (64 DTR 137) and Anurag Agarwal vs. ACIT, ITA No. 497/Agra/2015. In alternate, the ld. Counsel ITA Nos. 2935, 2936 & 2937 and 3770, 3771 & 3772/Del/2015 28 submitted that in case any addition is sustained on this head, the enhanced profit of eligible unit may be considered for deduction u/s. 80IC in terms of Circular No. 37/2016 dated 02.11.2016. 36. We hav…

M/S. OZONE PHARMACEUTICAL LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes and those of Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2935/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: A.Y. 2008-09
Section 14ASection 80I

…able was on the Assessing officer, which he failed to discharge while making the adhoc addition. Reliance is placed on the decision in the case of S.K. Engineering vs. JCIT, 103 ITD 97 (Bang. Tribunal) and ACIT vs. Bombay Real Estate Developers Co. Pvt. Ltd. (64 DTR 137) and Anurag Agarwal vs. ACIT, ITA No. 497/Agra/2015. In alternate, the ld. Counsel ITA Nos. 2935, 2936 & 2937 and 3770, 3771 & 3772/Del/2015 28 submitted that in case any addition is sustained on this head, the enhanced profit of eligible unit may be considered for deduction u/s. 80IC in terms of Circular No. 37/2016 dated 02.11.2016. 36. We hav…

ITO,WARD-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ARENS ESTATE(P)LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 1082/KOL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Sept 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] Assessment Year : 2009-10 (Appellant ) (Respondent) I.T.O., Ward-10(1) -Versus- M/S. Keshavanandan Investment & Kolkata Traders Private Ltd., Kolkata (Pan:Aabck 1668 E) Assessment Year : 2009-10 (Appellant ) (Respondent) I.T.O., Ward-10(1) -Versus- M/S. Arens Estate Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata Kolkata (Pan:Aacca 1729 M) For The Appellant : Shri Amitabh Chaudhuri, Addl.Cit For The Respondent : Shri M.Satnaliwala, Fca Date Of Hearing : 25.08.2015. Date Of Pronouncement : 16.09.2015. Order Per Shri M.Balaganesh, Am 1. These Appeals Of The Revenue Arise Out Of The Order Of The Learned Cita In Appeal No.381/Cit(A)-Xii/10(1)/2011-12 Dated 30.04.2012 For The Asst Year 2009- 10 Arising Out Of The Orders Of The Learned Assessing Officer Framed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). As The Issues Involved Are Identical In Nature In Both The Appeals, They Are Disposed Off Together By Way Of A Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Shri Amitabh Chaudhuri, Addl.CITFor Respondent: Shri M.Satnaliwala, FCA
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…ction u/s 80IB(10) for the same housing project u/s 143(3) proceedings dated 29.1.2013. 3.9. The facts of the case are also covered by the decision of the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs Bombay Real Estate Development Company (P) Ltd reported in (2011) 64 DTR 137 vide order dated 3.6.2011 , wherein it was held that : “Section 80IB(10) of the Act confers deduction to an undertaking “developing and building housing projects”. Though the word “develop” appearing in the sub-section has not been defined in the Act, it should mean, the activities which a person undertakes in order to prepare the land, both factu…

ITO,WARD-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. KESHAVANANDAN INVESTMENT & TRADERS(P)LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 1081/KOL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Sept 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] Assessment Year : 2009-10 (Appellant ) (Respondent) I.T.O., Ward-10(1) -Versus- M/S. Keshavanandan Investment & Kolkata Traders Private Ltd., Kolkata (Pan:Aabck 1668 E) Assessment Year : 2009-10 (Appellant ) (Respondent) I.T.O., Ward-10(1) -Versus- M/S. Arens Estate Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata Kolkata (Pan:Aacca 1729 M) For The Appellant : Shri Amitabh Chaudhuri, Addl.Cit For The Respondent : Shri M.Satnaliwala, Fca Date Of Hearing : 25.08.2015. Date Of Pronouncement : 16.09.2015. Order Per Shri M.Balaganesh, Am 1. These Appeals Of The Revenue Arise Out Of The Order Of The Learned Cita In Appeal No.381/Cit(A)-Xii/10(1)/2011-12 Dated 30.04.2012 For The Asst Year 2009- 10 Arising Out Of The Orders Of The Learned Assessing Officer Framed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). As The Issues Involved Are Identical In Nature In Both The Appeals, They Are Disposed Off Together By Way Of A Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Shri Amitabh Chaudhuri, Addl.CITFor Respondent: Shri M.Satnaliwala, FCA
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…ction u/s 80IB(10) for the same housing project u/s 143(3) proceedings dated 29.1.2013. 3.9. The facts of the case are also covered by the decision of the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs Bombay Real Estate Development Company (P) Ltd reported in (2011) 64 DTR 137 vide order dated 3.6.2011 , wherein it was held that : “Section 80IB(10) of the Act confers deduction to an undertaking “developing and building housing projects”. Though the word “develop” appearing in the sub-section has not been defined in the Act, it should mean, the activities which a person undertakes in order to prepare the land, both factu…

ACIT v. Bombay Real Estate Developers Co. Pvt. Ltd. (64 DTR 137) — Cited in 9 Judgments | BharatTax