Asstt. CIT v. Pratibha Industries Ltd.

141 ITD 151Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2013#1781 most cited

What is Asstt. CIT v. Pratibha Industries Ltd. authority for?

Where an assessee invests its own funds in an infrastructure development project, it is presumed to be acting as a developer, not merely a contractor, making it eligible for deduction under section 80-IA(4).

64

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Asstt. CIT v. Pratibha Industries Ltd. · 141 ITD 151 · 28 Taxmann.com 246 · section 80-IA(4) · infrastructure facility · developer vs contractor · own funds investment

Also reported as

28 Taxmann.com 246

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 153ASection 68Section 115BBESection 131

Issues it is cited on

section 80ia(13)section 80ia(4)(i)section 80iabsection 80lasection 86section 80ib(4)section 8osection 80lsection 80ia(1)section 80ia(4)infrastructure facilitysection 167b

Judgments citing Asstt. CIT v. Pratibha Industries Ltd.

M/S. Kailash Dwellers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3034/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Umesh Chand Dubey, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 22Section 234BSection 24

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “D”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.3034 & 3035/Del/2014 (Assessment Year: 2010-11 &2011-12) Vs. Kailash Dwellers Pvt. Ltd, DCIT, C/o. M/s. RRA Taxindia, Central Circle-4, D-28, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi New Delhi PAN:AACCK5224F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv Sh. Somil Aggarwal, CA Revenue by: Sh. Umesh Chand Dubey, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 12/01/2017 Date of pronouncement 28/03/2017 O R D E R PER N.K.SAINI, A. M. 1. These appeals filed by the assessee are dire…

Sri Bishwanath Garodia, Kolkata vs. DCIT, CC-3(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee being ITA Nos

ITA 853/KOL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Sept 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Vishwanethra Ravi

Section 131Section 132Section 153A

…r section 143(1) and section 143(3) for determining the scope of the proceedings under section 153A. However, the said question arose specifically for the consideration of Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal in the case of ACIT –vs.- Pratibha Industries reported in 141 ITD 151 and after referring to the discussion made by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in this context in the case of Anil Kumar Bhatia (supra), the Tribunal held that the only logical conclusion which could be traced out by harmonizing I.T.A. Nos. 853 & 854/KOL./2016 Assessment years: 2006-2007 & I.T.A. Nos. 855 & 856/KOL/2016 Assessment Year: 2007-2008 P…

ACIT CC 3(4) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. Shibani S. Bhojwani, Mumbai

ITA 7365/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2016AY 2008-09
For Appellant: S/Shri Yogesh A.Thar & Chaitanya D. JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Swamy-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153(3)(a)Section 153ASection 254(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, , , , मुंबई आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई “ई” ” ” ” खंडपीठ मुंबई खंडपीठ खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“E”Bench Mumbai सव"ी राजे"",लेखा सद"य एवं सी. एन. "साद,"याियक सद"य Before S/Shri Rajendra,Accountant Member and C.N. Prasad,Judicial Member आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ITA/7365/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2008-09 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" ACIT, Central Circle-3(4) Ms. Shibani S. Bhojwani 1st Floor, Samir Complex, Central Range-3 Vs. Mumbai. St. Andrews Road, Opp. Holy Family Hospital, Badra (…

Asst CIT Cen Cir 25, Mumbai vs. Patel Engineering Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed, whereas cross objection of the assessee is allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 6605/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2015AY 2005-06
For Appellant: Shri Mayur KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Deepkant Prasad
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 234DSection 80Section 80ISection 80l

…n of ld. CITDIR that assessee is a contractor, insofar as assessee has been mentioned as contractor in all the agreements, we rely on the following decisions :- i) In the assessee's own appeal for AY 2000-01, 94 ITD 411 (Mum); ii) ACIT v. Pratibha Industries 28 Taxmann.com 246 (Mum) ,wherein Mahalaxmi Construction Corpn. Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT in ITA 433/Pn/2007 has been relied upon; iii) ACIT v. Bharat Udyog Ltd. 24 SOT 412 (Mum) As regards the CIT DR's argument that the decision of the larger Bench in B.T. Patil & Sons Belgaum Construction Pvt. Ltd. 126 TTJ 577 (Mum) is still good law, we rely on the confirmatory…