B.T. Patil& Sons Belgaum Construction P. Ltd. v. ACIT

126 TTJ 577Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2009#1818 most cited

What is B.T. Patil& Sons Belgaum Construction P. Ltd. v. ACIT authority for?

A Special Bench decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal concerning Section 80IA deduction for infrastructure facility developers can be recalled if it fails to consider a binding jurisdictional High Court judgment.

63

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

B.T. Patil & Sons · 126 TTJ 577 · ITAT Special Bench recalled · Section 80IA deduction · infrastructure facility · developer status · binding precedent · ABG Heavy Engineering · eligibility for 80IA · recall of Tribunal order

Sections most often in play

Section 80IASection 115JBSection 143(1)Section 14ASection 14A read with Rule 8DSection 250(1)Section 270ASection 80IA(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 80ia(13)section 80lasection 80ia(4)(i)section 80lsection 33bsection 86section 80ib(4)section 250(1)section 80ia(4)infrastructure facilitysection 167bresulting company

Judgments citing B.T. Patil& Sons Belgaum Construction P. Ltd. v. ACIT

M/S. Rajkamal Builder Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-5, Ahmedabad

In the result this ground of appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

ITA 118/AHD/2009[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 May 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri (Dr.) Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR and Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80I

…or and confirmed order passed by the Ld. AO by holding that the assessee is a “work-contractor” and not a “developer”. For this conclusion, he has considered decision of ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of B.T. Patil& Sons Belgaum Construction P. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, 126 TTJ 577 and Patel Engineering Ltd. Vs. DCIT, 84 TTJ 646 and further decision of ITAT, Rajkot Bench in the case of Tarmat Bel (JV) KCL, Rajkot, ITA No.1111/RJT/2010 as relied upon by the assessee. However, the Ld.CIT(A) came to a finding that the judgment passed in the case of B.T. Patel& Sons (supra) was not applicable to the case of the assessee. Furthe…

Ircon International Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 7155/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. A. D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi J. Goswami, CIT(DR)
Section 801ASection 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”, NEW DELHI Before Sh. A. D. Jain, Vice President Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member ITA No. 2401/Del/2013 : A.Y. : 2006-07 ITA No. 27/Del/2013 : A.Y. : 2007-08 ITA No. 2402/Del/2013 : A.Y. : 2008-09 ITA No. 2403/Del/2013 : A.Y. : 2009-10 ITA No. 2652/Del/2014 : A.Y. : 2010-11 ITA No. 2563/Del/2014 : A.Y. : 2011-12 ITA No. 5460/Del/2017 : A.Y. : 2012-13 ITA No. 7155/Del/2017 : A.Y. : 2013-14 M/s. IRCON INTERNATIONAL Ltd., Vs Addl. CIT, C-4, DISTRICT Centre, Saket Range-11, New Delhi New Delhi Dy. CIT, Circle 11(1), New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDEN…

Ircon International Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Circle-12(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 5460/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. A. D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi J. Goswami, CIT(DR)
Section 801ASection 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”, NEW DELHI Before Sh. A. D. Jain, Vice President Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member ITA No. 2401/Del/2013 : A.Y. : 2006-07 ITA No. 27/Del/2013 : A.Y. : 2007-08 ITA No. 2402/Del/2013 : A.Y. : 2008-09 ITA No. 2403/Del/2013 : A.Y. : 2009-10 ITA No. 2652/Del/2014 : A.Y. : 2010-11 ITA No. 2563/Del/2014 : A.Y. : 2011-12 ITA No. 5460/Del/2017 : A.Y. : 2012-13 ITA No. 7155/Del/2017 : A.Y. : 2013-14 M/s. IRCON INTERNATIONAL Ltd., Vs Addl. CIT, C-4, DISTRICT Centre, Saket Range-11, New Delhi New Delhi Dy. CIT, Circle 11(1), New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDEN…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ircon International Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 528/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. A. D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi J. Goswami, CIT(DR)
Section 801ASection 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”, NEW DELHI Before Sh. A. D. Jain, Vice President Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member ITA No. 2401/Del/2013 : A.Y. : 2006-07 ITA No. 27/Del/2013 : A.Y. : 2007-08 ITA No. 2402/Del/2013 : A.Y. : 2008-09 ITA No. 2403/Del/2013 : A.Y. : 2009-10 ITA No. 2652/Del/2014 : A.Y. : 2010-11 ITA No. 2563/Del/2014 : A.Y. : 2011-12 ITA No. 5460/Del/2017 : A.Y. : 2012-13 ITA No. 7155/Del/2017 : A.Y. : 2013-14 M/s. IRCON INTERNATIONAL Ltd., Vs Addl. CIT, C-4, DISTRICT Centre, Saket Range-11, New Delhi New Delhi Dy. CIT, Circle 11(1), New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDEN…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Sahara India Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd., Lucknow

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes and the COs filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2481/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jul 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT, DR
Section 80I

…nly to execute the project, therefore, the assessee ought to be considered as the developer:- (i) ACIT vs Paras Buildcall Pvt Ltd: 57 taxmann.com 112 (Del-Trib) [refer page 58 of caselaw Paperbook]; (ii) B.T.Patil & Sons Belgaum Construction Pvt Ltd vs ACIT: 126 TTJ 577 (Mum) [refer page 70 of caselaw Paperbook]; (iii) CIT v. Radhe Developers: 341 ITR 403 (Guj HC) [refer page 118 of caselaw Paperbook] (iv) Sugam Construction Pvt Ltd vs ITO: 56 SOT 45 (Ahd ITAT)(URO) [refer page 133 of caselaw Paperbook] CO Nos.221 & 222/Del/2011 19. So far as the stand of the AO that the booking application forms of flats were a…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Ircon International Ltd., New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2449/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singhita No. 977/Del/2010 [A.Y 2004-05]

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Gupta. AdvFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT-DR

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘C’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 977/DEL/2010 [A.Y 2004-05] ITA No. 2220/DEL/2011 [A.Y 2005-06] IRCON International Limited, Vs. Dy. C.I.T. Palika Kendra, Circle 11(1) R.K. Puram Sector-XIII, New Delhi New Delhi PAN: AAACI 0684 H ITA No. 1491/DEL/2010 [A.Y 2004-05] ITA No. 2449/DEL/2011 [A.Y 2005-06] Dy. C.I.T. Vs. IRCON International Limited Circle 11(1) Palika Kendra New Delhi R.K. Puram Sector-XIII New Delhi PAN: AAACI 0684 H (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rakesh…

M/S Ircon International Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2220/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singhita No. 977/Del/2010 [A.Y 2004-05]

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Gupta. AdvFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT-DR

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘C’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 977/DEL/2010 [A.Y 2004-05] ITA No. 2220/DEL/2011 [A.Y 2005-06] IRCON International Limited, Vs. Dy. C.I.T. Palika Kendra, Circle 11(1) R.K. Puram Sector-XIII, New Delhi New Delhi PAN: AAACI 0684 H ITA No. 1491/DEL/2010 [A.Y 2004-05] ITA No. 2449/DEL/2011 [A.Y 2005-06] Dy. C.I.T. Vs. IRCON International Limited Circle 11(1) Palika Kendra New Delhi R.K. Puram Sector-XIII New Delhi PAN: AAACI 0684 H (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rakesh…

Ircon International Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 977/DEL/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singhita No. 977/Del/2010 [A.Y 2004-05]

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Gupta. AdvFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT-DR

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘C’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 977/DEL/2010 [A.Y 2004-05] ITA No. 2220/DEL/2011 [A.Y 2005-06] IRCON International Limited, Vs. Dy. C.I.T. Palika Kendra, Circle 11(1) R.K. Puram Sector-XIII, New Delhi New Delhi PAN: AAACI 0684 H ITA No. 1491/DEL/2010 [A.Y 2004-05] ITA No. 2449/DEL/2011 [A.Y 2005-06] Dy. C.I.T. Vs. IRCON International Limited Circle 11(1) Palika Kendra New Delhi R.K. Puram Sector-XIII New Delhi PAN: AAACI 0684 H (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rakesh…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ircon International Ltd., New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1491/DEL/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singhita No. 977/Del/2010 [A.Y 2004-05]

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Gupta. AdvFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT-DR

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘C’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 977/DEL/2010 [A.Y 2004-05] ITA No. 2220/DEL/2011 [A.Y 2005-06] IRCON International Limited, Vs. Dy. C.I.T. Palika Kendra, Circle 11(1) R.K. Puram Sector-XIII, New Delhi New Delhi PAN: AAACI 0684 H ITA No. 1491/DEL/2010 [A.Y 2004-05] ITA No. 2449/DEL/2011 [A.Y 2005-06] Dy. C.I.T. Vs. IRCON International Limited Circle 11(1) Palika Kendra New Delhi R.K. Puram Sector-XIII New Delhi PAN: AAACI 0684 H (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rakesh…

Gmr Tambaram Tindivanam Expressways Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result that the revenue appeals are dismissed

ITA 545/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Nov 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri. Sunil Jain, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P. V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT
Section 16

…Hydi/2013 for AY 2008-09 and ITA Nio.418/Hyd/2013 for AY 2009-10 Mumbai ITAT in the case of Smc Infrastructure P. Ltd, Thane (iv) vs ACIT in ITA No 678 & 679/Mum/2010 for AY 2006-07 Biotech Medicals (P) Ltd., 121 'TTJ 858 (v) B.T.Patil & Sons Belgaum vs. ACIT 126 TTJ 577 (Mum) (vi) (vii) Ahmedabad ITAT in the case of Modern Construction Co (P.) Ltd vs DCIT (42 Taxmann.com 172) (Ahd-Trib) (viii) Hyderabad ITAT in the case of KMC Constructions Ltd vs. ACIT (21 Taxmann.com 138) (Hyd-Trib) 8. In absence of breakup of income and expenses reacting to widening, strengthening and having regard to the fact that the asses…

Welspun Projects Ltd.(Formerly Known As Msk Projects (India) Ltd.), Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT, Range-4, Baroda

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 225/AHD/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Oct 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1864/Ahd/2013 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 & "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2006-2007 Welspun Projects (Formerly Known Ito, Ward-4(1) As Msk Projects (India) Ltd. Vs Baroda. 707-708, Sterling Centre R.C.Dutt Road, Alkapuri Baroda 390 005. Pan : Aabcm 4107 C अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vartik Chokshi With Shri Biren Shah, Ar Revenue By : Smt.Aparna M. Agrawal, Dr

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Chokshi with Shri Biren Shah, ARFor Respondent: Smt.Aparna M. Agrawal, DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80I

…s. 433 etc./Asr/2009. In the case of M/s. TRG Industries P. Ltd. similar facts were involved and the Hon'ble Tribunal has considered various decided cases as under: (1) CIT vs. ABG Heavy Industries Ltd., 322 ITR 323 (Bom.) (2) Patel Engineering Ltd. vs. DCIT, 84 TTJ 646 (Mum.) (3) DCIT vs. Intercontinental Consultants & Technocrats (P) Ltd, 22 SOT 259 (Del.) (4) ACIT vs. Bharat Udyog Ltd., 123 TTJ 689 (Mum.) (5) Koya & Co. Construction P. Ltd. vs. ACIT, 51 SOT 203 (Hyd.) (6) Om Metal Infra Projects Ltd. vs. CIT, 26 DTR 359 (Jaipur) (7) Ayush Ajay Construction Ltd. vs. ITO, 79 ITD 213 (Indore) (8) Chetak Enterpris…

Welspun Projects Ltd.(Formerly Known As Msk Projects (India) Ltd.), Baroda vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Baroda

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1864/AHD/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Oct 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1864/Ahd/2013 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 & "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2006-2007 Welspun Projects (Formerly Known Ito, Ward-4(1) As Msk Projects (India) Ltd. Vs Baroda. 707-708, Sterling Centre R.C.Dutt Road, Alkapuri Baroda 390 005. Pan : Aabcm 4107 C अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vartik Chokshi With Shri Biren Shah, Ar Revenue By : Smt.Aparna M. Agrawal, Dr

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Chokshi with Shri Biren Shah, ARFor Respondent: Smt.Aparna M. Agrawal, DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80I

…s. 433 etc./Asr/2009. In the case of M/s. TRG Industries P. Ltd. similar facts were involved and the Hon'ble Tribunal has considered various decided cases as under: (1) CIT vs. ABG Heavy Industries Ltd., 322 ITR 323 (Bom.) (2) Patel Engineering Ltd. vs. DCIT, 84 TTJ 646 (Mum.) (3) DCIT vs. Intercontinental Consultants & Technocrats (P) Ltd, 22 SOT 259 (Del.) (4) ACIT vs. Bharat Udyog Ltd., 123 TTJ 689 (Mum.) (5) Koya & Co. Construction P. Ltd. vs. ACIT, 51 SOT 203 (Hyd.) (6) Om Metal Infra Projects Ltd. vs. CIT, 26 DTR 359 (Jaipur) (7) Ayush Ajay Construction Ltd. vs. ITO, 79 ITD 213 (Indore) (8) Chetak Enterpris…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-3(4), Mumbai vs. Patel Engineering Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5269/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & G. Manjunatha, Am Patel Engineering Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of Sv Road, Patel Estate, Income Tax, Cc-3(4),Room Jogeshwari (W), No. 1915, 19Th Floor Air Vs. Mumbai-400102 India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aaacp2567L The Dy. Commissioner Of Patel Engineering Ltd. Income Tax, Cc-3(4),Room Sv Road, Patel Estate, No. 1915, 19Th Floor Air India Vs. Jogeshwari (W), Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400102 Mumbai-400 021 Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Mayur Kisnadwala, ARFor Respondent: HN Singh, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 80I

…n Mahalaxmi Construction Gorpn Ltd it Asst CIT in ITA 4331Pn12007 has been relied upon; iii) ACIT vs Bharat Ltd Udyog Ltd 24 SOT 412 (mum). As regards the CIT DR's argument that the decision of the larger Bench in B 7' Pafil & Sons Belgaurn Construction P Ltd 126 TTJ 577 (Mum) is still good law, we rely on the confirmatory order (reported in 34 Taxmann.com 97 (Pune) passed by the Pune Bench. In view of the above discussion, we uphold the action of the c17(A) for allowing claim of deduction u/s 80IA(4) in respect of all the projects. 15. As I am bound by the judicial discipline and the order of the Hon'ble ITAT…

Patel Engineering Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-3(4), Mumbai

ITA 4992/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & G. Manjunatha, Am Patel Engineering Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of Sv Road, Patel Estate, Income Tax, Cc-3(4),Room Jogeshwari (W), No. 1915, 19Th Floor Air Vs. Mumbai-400102 India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aaacp2567L The Dy. Commissioner Of Patel Engineering Ltd. Income Tax, Cc-3(4),Room Sv Road, Patel Estate, No. 1915, 19Th Floor Air India Vs. Jogeshwari (W), Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400102 Mumbai-400 021 Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Mayur Kisnadwala, ARFor Respondent: HN Singh, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 80I

…n Mahalaxmi Construction Gorpn Ltd it Asst CIT in ITA 4331Pn12007 has been relied upon; iii) ACIT vs Bharat Ltd Udyog Ltd 24 SOT 412 (mum). As regards the CIT DR's argument that the decision of the larger Bench in B 7' Pafil & Sons Belgaurn Construction P Ltd 126 TTJ 577 (Mum) is still good law, we rely on the confirmatory order (reported in 34 Taxmann.com 97 (Pune) passed by the Pune Bench. In view of the above discussion, we uphold the action of the c17(A) for allowing claim of deduction u/s 80IA(4) in respect of all the projects. 15. As I am bound by the judicial discipline and the order of the Hon'ble ITAT…

M/S. Pratibha Sms Jv, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT, New Delhi

ITA 2735/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Marghav Shukla, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Aparna Karan,CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 263Section 80I

…r and that it cannot be considered as a developer. However, this order of ITAT Mumbai Bench has since been reversed by the Hon’ble Mumbai High Court. It is also seen that ITAT Mumbai Bench, in the case of Patel Engineering Company Ltd. vs. ACIT reported in 84 TTJ 646 Mumbai, has on almost similar facts and circumstances held that the assessee therein was the developer of the infrastructure project and eligible for deduction u/s 80IA. Paragraph 47 of the said order is being reproduced herein for a ready reference:- “There has also been the contention of the Revenue that the assessee is a contractor, executing…

M/S. Pratibha Sms Jv, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT, New Delhi

ITA 2347/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Marghav Shukla, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Aparna Karan,CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 263Section 80I

…r and that it cannot be considered as a developer. However, this order of ITAT Mumbai Bench has since been reversed by the Hon’ble Mumbai High Court. It is also seen that ITAT Mumbai Bench, in the case of Patel Engineering Company Ltd. vs. ACIT reported in 84 TTJ 646 Mumbai, has on almost similar facts and circumstances held that the assessee therein was the developer of the infrastructure project and eligible for deduction u/s 80IA. Paragraph 47 of the said order is being reproduced herein for a ready reference:- “There has also been the contention of the Revenue that the assessee is a contractor, executing…

DCIT CC 3(4) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. Patel Engineering Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the Assessee is allowed in part in terms indicated herein above

ITA 3643/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ashwani Taneja

For Appellant: Shri Mayur KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Smt Vidisha Kalra
Section 143(3)Section 801A(4)Section 80I

…ahalaxmi 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 order [reported in 34 Taxmann.com 97) (Pune)] passed by the Pune Bench. 10. In view of the above discussion, we uphold the action of CIT(A) for allowing claim of deduction u/s.80IA(4) in respect of all the projects.” 6. Respectfully following the said order, we hold that the Assessee is a deve…

M/S Parnika Commercial & Estates (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5724/DEL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri C.M. Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Ashish Chandra Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 250(6)Section 80Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH ‘F’ NEW DELHI BEFORE : SHRI C.M. GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 5724/Del./2010 Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Parnika Commercial & Estates (P) Ltd., vs. Addl. C.I.T., Range-14, G-15, Preet Vihar, New Delhi. New Delhi. [PAN: AAACP0555C] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Kapil Goel, Advocate Respondent by : Sh. Ashish Chandra Mohanty, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 01.07.2016 Date of pronouncement : 22.07.2016 ORDER Per L.P. Sahu, Accountant Member: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A)- XVII, New D…

ITO WD 3(1), Thane vs. Ncc SMC Indu Jv, Thane

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3070/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2016AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Nelkant Khandelwal
Section 143(3)Section 801ASection 80ISection 80l

…ion between Hon'ble Members of the Pune Bench of ITAT. Accordingly, a larger Bench was constituted and the issue of deduction u/s. 80IA(4) was decided against the assessee vide order reported in B.T. Patil & Sons Belgaum Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2009) 126 TTJ 577 (Mum) (TM). After this decision, appeal of assessee was refixed for giving effect to the decision of larger Bench u/s. 255(4). However, the same was dismissed in limine because of non-appearance on behalf of the assessee. Aggrieved assessee moved a Miscellaneous Application before the Hon.ble ITAT, Pune to recall the order. With the abundant prec…

Infrastructure Projects Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3617/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble S/Shri Saktijit Dey (Jm) & Ashwani Taneja (Am)

Section 80I

…he assessee u/s 80IA (4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been denied by the AO and the same was confirmed by the ld CIT(A) by following the decision of Pune Bench of the Tribunal in B.T. Patil & Sons Belgaum Constructions Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Pune) (2010) (126 TTJ 577), wherein the Hon’ble Bench had taken a view that the deduction u/s 80IA was not allowable to the assessee for the reasons that it was not allowable on works contract. It was submitted by the Ld. AR that this judgment was contested by the said company before its jurisdictional High 3 Court (i.e. Bombay High Court), and the High Court had sent th…