ACIT v. Vijay Tukaram Raundal

147 Taxmann.com 53Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2023#14929 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2024 to 2024.

Issues it is cited on

section 80ib(10)section 143(1)(a)(iv)section 80ibsection 80ichildsection 143(1)(a)first appealsection 154section 80section 143(1)prescribedperson

Judgments citing ACIT v. Vijay Tukaram Raundal

M/S. City Corporation Limited, Pune vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Pune

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 528/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P Bora & Saukhya LakadeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 133(1)(d)Section 143(2)Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.527 & 528/PUN/2024 Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 M/s. City Corporation Limited DCIT, Central Circle – 917/19A, City Chambers, F C Road, Vs. 1(2), Pune Pune – 411004 PAN: AACCC2920K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Suhas P Bora & Saukhya Lakade Department by : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date of hearing : 13-11-2024 Date of pronouncement : 18-12-2024 O R D E R PER R. K. PANDA, VP : The above two appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the co…

M/S. City Corporation Limited, Pune vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Pune

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 527/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P Bora & Saukhya LakadeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 133(1)(d)Section 143(2)Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.527 & 528/PUN/2024 Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 M/s. City Corporation Limited DCIT, Central Circle – 917/19A, City Chambers, F C Road, Vs. 1(2), Pune Pune – 411004 PAN: AACCC2920K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Suhas P Bora & Saukhya Lakade Department by : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date of hearing : 13-11-2024 Date of pronouncement : 18-12-2024 O R D E R PER R. K. PANDA, VP : The above two appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the co…

Vijay Tukaram Raundal, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Pune

ITA 109/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Smt Astha Chandra & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr NK Rander [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Sourabh Nayak [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 154Section 250Section 80Section 80I

…In first appeal, the assessee successfully contested the denial of deduction of 80IB(10) claim, however when the matter travelled in second appeal, the co-ordinate bench in ITA No. 178/PUN/2019 dt. 30/08/2022 [‘ACIT Vs Vijay Tukaram Raundal’ reported in 2023, 147 Taxmann.com 53] settled the dispute establishing on record conclusively that the assessee violated the provisions of s/clause (iii) of clause (a) of s/s (10) of section 80IB of the Act and consequently upheld the action of Ld. AO in denying the claim of deduction vide para 20 of its order holding as under; ‘20.To sum up, the housing project was approved…

Vijay Tukaram Raundal, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Pune

ITA 108/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Smt Astha Chandra & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr NK Rander [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Sourabh Nayak [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 154Section 250Section 80Section 80I

…In first appeal, the assessee successfully contested the denial of deduction of 80IB(10) claim, however when the matter travelled in second appeal, the co-ordinate bench in ITA No. 178/PUN/2019 dt. 30/08/2022 [‘ACIT Vs Vijay Tukaram Raundal’ reported in 2023, 147 Taxmann.com 53] settled the dispute establishing on record conclusively that the assessee violated the provisions of s/clause (iii) of clause (a) of s/s (10) of section 80IB of the Act and consequently upheld the action of Ld. AO in denying the claim of deduction vide para 20 of its order holding as under; ‘20.To sum up, the housing project was approved…

Vijay Tukaram Raundal, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Pune.

ITA 107/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Smt Astha Chandra & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr NK Rander [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Sourabh Nayak [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 154Section 250Section 80Section 80I

…In first appeal, the assessee successfully contested the denial of deduction of 80IB(10) claim, however when the matter travelled in second appeal, the co-ordinate bench in ITA No. 178/PUN/2019 dt. 30/08/2022 [‘ACIT Vs Vijay Tukaram Raundal’ reported in 2023, 147 Taxmann.com 53] settled the dispute establishing on record conclusively that the assessee violated the provisions of s/clause (iii) of clause (a) of s/s (10) of section 80IB of the Act and consequently upheld the action of Ld. AO in denying the claim of deduction vide para 20 of its order holding as under; ‘20.To sum up, the housing project was approved…

Vijay Tukaram Raundal, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Pune

ITA 103/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Smt Astha Chandra & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr NK Rander [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Sourabh Nayak [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 154Section 250Section 80Section 80I

…In first appeal, the assessee successfully contested the denial of deduction of 80IB(10) claim, however when the matter travelled in second appeal, the co-ordinate bench in ITA No. 178/PUN/2019 dt. 30/08/2022 [‘ACIT Vs Vijay Tukaram Raundal’ reported in 2023, 147 Taxmann.com 53] settled the dispute establishing on record conclusively that the assessee violated the provisions of s/clause (iii) of clause (a) of s/s (10) of section 80IB of the Act and consequently upheld the action of Ld. AO in denying the claim of deduction vide para 20 of its order holding as under; ‘20.To sum up, the housing project was approved…