Arun Excello Foundation Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT

108 TTJ 71Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2007#13219 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2018.

Judgments citing Arun Excello Foundation Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT

ITO WD 2(3), Kalyan vs. Nancy Icon Builders and Developers, Ulhasnagar

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6491/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jul 2018AY 2009-10
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 80I

…Suncity Housing (ITA No. 5183/M/2014) dated 30.05.2016, (e) Bengal Ambuja Housing Development Ltd Vs ACIT (ACIT Vs 1595/Kol/2005) upheld by Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in IT Appeal No.458 of 2006 dated 05/01/2007, (f) Arun Excello Foundation Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT [ 108 TTJ 71 (Chen)], (g) G.V. Corporation Vs ITO [ 38 SOT 174( Mum)], (h) SJR Builder Vs ACIT [3 ITR (T) 569 (Bang)], (i) ITO Vs Air Developers [122 ITD 125(Nag)] (j) CIT Vs Global Reality [2005] 379 ITR 107 (MP). 7. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and have gone through the orders of the authorities below. During the assessment the a…

Soham Construction, Kalyan vs. ITO WD 2(4), Kalyan

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 336/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Narendra Singh Janpangi
Section 80I

…o: 5183/Mum/2014) dated 30.05.2016; e. Bengal Ambuja Housing Development Ltd v. Asst. CIT (1TA No:1595/Ko1/2005) dated 24.03.2006 upheld by Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in IT Appeal No 458 Of 2006 dated 05.01.2007; f. Arun Excello Foundation Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT [108 TTJ 71 (Chen)]; g. G.V. Corporation v. ITO [38 SOT 174 (Mum)]; h. SJR Builders v. ACIT [3 ITR(T) 569 (Bang)]; and i. ITO v. Air Developers [122 ITD 125 (Nag)]. 18. Ld. DR submitted before us that the residential units i.e. Flat Nos. 201-202; 501-502 and 602-603 are separate units and they are assessed separately by Municipal Authorities. Since all these…

ITO WD 2(4), Kalyan vs. Soham Constuction, Badlapur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 164/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Narendra Singh Janpangi
Section 80I

…o: 5183/Mum/2014) dated 30.05.2016; e. Bengal Ambuja Housing Development Ltd v. Asst. CIT (1TA No:1595/Ko1/2005) dated 24.03.2006 upheld by Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in IT Appeal No 458 Of 2006 dated 05.01.2007; f. Arun Excello Foundation Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT [108 TTJ 71 (Chen)]; g. G.V. Corporation v. ITO [38 SOT 174 (Mum)]; h. SJR Builders v. ACIT [3 ITR(T) 569 (Bang)]; and i. ITO v. Air Developers [122 ITD 125 (Nag)]. 18. Ld. DR submitted before us that the residential units i.e. Flat Nos. 201-202; 501-502 and 602-603 are separate units and they are assessed separately by Municipal Authorities. Since all these…

Shri Ramsingh Kumar, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, this ground of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2196/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jan 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2194, 2195 & 2196/Mds/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Shri Ramsingh Kumar, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.7, 1St Floor, V. Income Tax, Papanasam Sivan Salai, Non-Corporate Circle – 2, Santhome, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 034. Chennai – 600 004. Pan : Afdpr4037A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 19.10.2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06.01.2017

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80I

…port. The assessing authority is accordingly directed to make proportionate disallowance and pass its consequential order.” 7.1 He also relied on the decisions of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chennai in the cases of Arun Excello Foundations Pvt. Ltd., 108 TTJ 71 and Sanghvi & Doshi Enterprises Vs Income Tax Officer 131 ITD 151 (Chennai-TM). 7.2 He relied on the decision in the case Emgeen Holdings Pvt Ltd Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 12 Taxmann.com 468 (Mum), where sale of more than one residential unit to family members has been held to be not violative of Sec. 80IB as it stood prior to the…

Shri Ramsingh Kumar, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, this ground of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2195/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jan 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2194, 2195 & 2196/Mds/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Shri Ramsingh Kumar, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.7, 1St Floor, V. Income Tax, Papanasam Sivan Salai, Non-Corporate Circle – 2, Santhome, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 034. Chennai – 600 004. Pan : Afdpr4037A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 19.10.2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06.01.2017

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80I

…port. The assessing authority is accordingly directed to make proportionate disallowance and pass its consequential order.” 7.1 He also relied on the decisions of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chennai in the cases of Arun Excello Foundations Pvt. Ltd., 108 TTJ 71 and Sanghvi & Doshi Enterprises Vs Income Tax Officer 131 ITD 151 (Chennai-TM). 7.2 He relied on the decision in the case Emgeen Holdings Pvt Ltd Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 12 Taxmann.com 468 (Mum), where sale of more than one residential unit to family members has been held to be not violative of Sec. 80IB as it stood prior to the…

Shri Ramsingh Kumar, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, this ground of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2194/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2194, 2195 & 2196/Mds/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Shri Ramsingh Kumar, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.7, 1St Floor, V. Income Tax, Papanasam Sivan Salai, Non-Corporate Circle – 2, Santhome, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 034. Chennai – 600 004. Pan : Afdpr4037A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 19.10.2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06.01.2017

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80I

…port. The assessing authority is accordingly directed to make proportionate disallowance and pass its consequential order.” 7.1 He also relied on the decisions of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chennai in the cases of Arun Excello Foundations Pvt. Ltd., 108 TTJ 71 and Sanghvi & Doshi Enterprises Vs Income Tax Officer 131 ITD 151 (Chennai-TM). 7.2 He relied on the decision in the case Emgeen Holdings Pvt Ltd Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 12 Taxmann.com 468 (Mum), where sale of more than one residential unit to family members has been held to be not violative of Sec. 80IB as it stood prior to the…

Asst CIT Cir 21(3), Mumbai vs. Suncity Housing, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 5183/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5183/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11)

For Appellant: None
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 80Section 801B(10)Section 80I

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “E” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5183/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11) Asstt. Commissioner of M/s Suncity Housing, बनाम/ Income Tax – Cir. 21(3), D-101, Prashant Aprts., v. Room No. 501, Bldg., 5th Opp. IIT Main Gate, floor, Powai, C-11, Pratyaksh Kar Mumbai – 400 007 Bhavan, BKC, Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN : AAPFS4720G .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue by Shri Ritesh Misra, DR Assess…

Arun Excello Foundation Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (108 TTJ 71) — Cited in 7 Judgments | BharatTax