Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. CIT

196 ITR 188Supreme Court of India1992#272 most cited

What is Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Provisions in taxing statutes that grant incentives, concessions, or exemptions for promoting economic growth and industrialization must be interpreted liberally and purposively. Any restrictions placed on such provisions should also be construed reasonably to advance their objective, not frustrate it.

289

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,164 Indian tax judgments — from 2004 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Bajaj Tempo v. CIT · liberal interpretation · incentive provisions · economic growth · Section 32(1)(iia) · additional depreciation · Section 80IA · Section 80HHC · deduction provisions · tax exemptions · purposive construction

Also reported as

62 Taxmann 4803 SCC 78

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 80IASection 143(1)Section 80HHCSection 139(1)Section 80IBSection 10BSection 263

Issues it is cited on

section 32(1)(iia)section 80hhsection 80ia(4)section 80hhcdeduction under section 80iainfrastructure facilitydeduction u/s 80iatax benefitadditional depreciationsection 80iasection 80asection 80i

Judgments citing Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. CIT

DCIT(Ltu) - 1, Mumbai vs. Acc Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3246/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blem/S. Acc Ltd., V. Dcit – Range – 1(1) Mumbai {Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Companies, Ltd.,} Cement House, 121 M.K. Road, Churchgate Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit (Ltu)-1 V. M/S. Acc Ltd., 29Th Floor, Centre No.1 Cement House, 121 World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade M.K. Road, Churchgate Mumbai - 400005 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…(supra), has pointed out that once deduction is allowed in the first year, revenue has no power to deny the deduction in subsequent assessment years as provided under the Act. 93. Even the Supreme Court in case of Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. CIT [1992] 62 Taxman 480 /196 ITR 188 held that a provision in the taxing statute for promoting growth and development is to be construed liberally and hence, even the restriction contained in such a provision has to be construed so as to advance the objective of the provision and not to frustrate it. 94. The CIT(A) has also raised an objection to the effect that since L&T was not el…

Acc Limited (Formerly Known As the Associated Cement Companies Ltd.), Mumbai vs. Addll. CIT, RG. 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3203/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blem/S. Acc Ltd., V. Dcit – Range – 1(1) Mumbai {Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Companies, Ltd.,} Cement House, 121 M.K. Road, Churchgate Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit (Ltu)-1 V. M/S. Acc Ltd., 29Th Floor, Centre No.1 Cement House, 121 World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade M.K. Road, Churchgate Mumbai - 400005 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…(supra), has pointed out that once deduction is allowed in the first year, revenue has no power to deny the deduction in subsequent assessment years as provided under the Act. 93. Even the Supreme Court in case of Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. CIT [1992] 62 Taxman 480 /196 ITR 188 held that a provision in the taxing statute for promoting growth and development is to be construed liberally and hence, even the restriction contained in such a provision has to be construed so as to advance the objective of the provision and not to frustrate it. 94. The CIT(A) has also raised an objection to the effect that since L&T was not el…

Acc Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Ltu, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6082/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 145A

…(supra), has pointed out that once deduction is allowed in the first year, revenue has no power to deny the deduction in subsequent assessment years as provided under the Act. 93. Even the Supreme Court in case of Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. CIT [1992] 62 Taxman 480 /196 ITR 188 held that a provision in the taxing statute for promoting growth and development is to be construed liberally and hence, even the restriction contained in such a provision has to be construed so as to advance the objective of the provision and not to frustrate it. 94. The CIT(A) has also raised an objection to the effect that since L&T was not el…

Acc Ltd ( Formerly Known As the Associates Cement Companies Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Ltu, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4669/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 145A

…(supra), has pointed out that once deduction is allowed in the first year, revenue has no power to deny the deduction in subsequent assessment years as provided under the Act. 93. Even the Supreme Court in case of Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. CIT [1992] 62 Taxman 480 /196 ITR 188 held that a provision in the taxing statute for promoting growth and development is to be construed liberally and hence, even the restriction contained in such a provision has to be construed so as to advance the objective of the provision and not to frustrate it. 94. The CIT(A) has also raised an objection to the effect that since L&T was not el…

Addl.C.I.T. Ltu, Mumbai vs. Acc Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4556/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 145A

…(supra), has pointed out that once deduction is allowed in the first year, revenue has no power to deny the deduction in subsequent assessment years as provided under the Act. 93. Even the Supreme Court in case of Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. CIT [1992] 62 Taxman 480 /196 ITR 188 held that a provision in the taxing statute for promoting growth and development is to be construed liberally and hence, even the restriction contained in such a provision has to be construed so as to advance the objective of the provision and not to frustrate it. 94. The CIT(A) has also raised an objection to the effect that since L&T was not el…

Srf Ltd., Gurgaon vs. Addl CIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 774/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Ussrf Limited Vs. Acit Unitech Crest, Greenwood Range – 9, City Block – C, Sector – 45, Ltu, New Delhi Gurgaon – 122 003 Pan No. Aaacs 0206 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pradeep Dinodia, Shri R. K. Kapoor C.A. Shri Ravi Kumar Revenue By Shri Mahesh Shah, Cit (Dr) Shri Rajesh Kumar, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 10/01/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 23/02/2023 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Dated 27.09.2016 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-44, New Delhi [For Short, Cit(A)] Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [For Short, 'The Act'] For Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case As Culled Out From The Material On Record Are As Under:-

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 92C

…nt year observed as under : “This additional benefit in the form of additional allowance under section 32(1)(iia) is onetime benefit to encourage the industrialization and in view of the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Bajaj Tempo Ltd. vs. CIT [1992] 196 ITR 188/62 Taxman 480, the provision related to it have to be constructed reasonably, liberally and purposively to make the provision meaningful while granting the additional allowance.” Similarly in case of TCPL Packaging Ltd. (supra), the Mumbai Bench has held that remaining additional depreciation claimed can be allowed in immediately succeeding year…

The ACIT, Kochi vs. M/S.Cochin Shipyard Ltd, Kochi

In the result, all the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 659/COCH/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. ARFor Respondent: S/Shri Rajasekharan & K. Gopi, CAs
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32(1)(ii)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 40

…Tyres Ltd., Kitex Garments Ltd. and Sud-Chemie India ITA Nos.655 to 659/Coch/2019 Page 3 of 10 Pvt. Ltd. are clearly applicable to assessee’s case. The CIT(A) further relied on the decision of the Supreme court in the case of Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. CIT [1992] 196 ITR 188 to conclude that the additional allowance u/s. 32(1)(iia) is a one time benefit to encourage the industrialisation and that the provisions have to be construed reasonably liberally and purposively to make the provision meaningful. Aggrieved the revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The ld. AR reiterated the submissions made before the low…

The ACIT, Kochi vs. M/S.Cochin Shipyard Ltd, Kochi

In the result, all the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 658/COCH/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. ARFor Respondent: S/Shri Rajasekharan & K. Gopi, CAs
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32(1)(ii)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 40

…Tyres Ltd., Kitex Garments Ltd. and Sud-Chemie India ITA Nos.655 to 659/Coch/2019 Page 3 of 10 Pvt. Ltd. are clearly applicable to assessee’s case. The CIT(A) further relied on the decision of the Supreme court in the case of Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. CIT [1992] 196 ITR 188 to conclude that the additional allowance u/s. 32(1)(iia) is a one time benefit to encourage the industrialisation and that the provisions have to be construed reasonably liberally and purposively to make the provision meaningful. Aggrieved the revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The ld. AR reiterated the submissions made before the low…

The ACIT, Kochi vs. M/S.Cochin Shipyard Ltd, Kochi

In the result, all the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 657/COCH/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. ARFor Respondent: S/Shri Rajasekharan & K. Gopi, CAs
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32(1)(ii)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 40

…Tyres Ltd., Kitex Garments Ltd. and Sud-Chemie India ITA Nos.655 to 659/Coch/2019 Page 3 of 10 Pvt. Ltd. are clearly applicable to assessee’s case. The CIT(A) further relied on the decision of the Supreme court in the case of Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. CIT [1992] 196 ITR 188 to conclude that the additional allowance u/s. 32(1)(iia) is a one time benefit to encourage the industrialisation and that the provisions have to be construed reasonably liberally and purposively to make the provision meaningful. Aggrieved the revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The ld. AR reiterated the submissions made before the low…

The ACIT, Kochi vs. M/S.Cochin Shipyard Ltd, Kochi

In the result, all the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 656/COCH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. ARFor Respondent: S/Shri Rajasekharan & K. Gopi, CAs
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32(1)(ii)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 40

…Tyres Ltd., Kitex Garments Ltd. and Sud-Chemie India ITA Nos.655 to 659/Coch/2019 Page 3 of 10 Pvt. Ltd. are clearly applicable to assessee’s case. The CIT(A) further relied on the decision of the Supreme court in the case of Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. CIT [1992] 196 ITR 188 to conclude that the additional allowance u/s. 32(1)(iia) is a one time benefit to encourage the industrialisation and that the provisions have to be construed reasonably liberally and purposively to make the provision meaningful. Aggrieved the revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The ld. AR reiterated the submissions made before the low…

The ACIT, Kochi vs. M/S.Cochin Shipyard Ltd, Kochi

In the result, all the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 655/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Jan 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. ARFor Respondent: S/Shri Rajasekharan & K. Gopi, CAs
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32(1)(ii)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 40

…Tyres Ltd., Kitex Garments Ltd. and Sud-Chemie India ITA Nos.655 to 659/Coch/2019 Page 3 of 10 Pvt. Ltd. are clearly applicable to assessee’s case. The CIT(A) further relied on the decision of the Supreme court in the case of Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. CIT [1992] 196 ITR 188 to conclude that the additional allowance u/s. 32(1)(iia) is a one time benefit to encourage the industrialisation and that the provisions have to be construed reasonably liberally and purposively to make the provision meaningful. Aggrieved the revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The ld. AR reiterated the submissions made before the low…

M/S. Syndicate Bank Staff Co-Op. Society Ltd., Bengaluru vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

ITA 1062/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jan 2023AY 2018-19
For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Shi Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 234FSection 80Section 80ASection 80P

…growth of cooperative sector in the economic life of the country. It was done pursuant to the declared policy of the Government. Therefore, such a provision has to be read liberally, reasonably and in favour of the assessee (see Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. CIT [1992] 3 SCC 78]). It is also trite that such a provision has to be construed as to effectuate the object of the legislature and not to defeat it (see CIT v. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. [1983] 4 SCC 392. Therefore, it hardly needs to be emphasised that all those cooperative societies which fall within the purview of section 80-P of the Act are entitled to deduction…

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. Vijay M. Mistry Construction Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1481/AHD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2938/Ahd/2011, 2939/Ahd/2011, 2286/Ahd/2012, 268/Ahd/2015, 269/Ahd/2015, 502/Ahd/2017, 1145/Ahd/2019 & 1468/Ahd/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2016-17) Address In A.Ys. 2007-08, बनाम/ 2008-09 & 2009-10 Vs. Vijay M. Mistry Cons. P. Asst. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income Tax Circle–8, B-209, 2Nd Floor, 501, Swagat, C. G. Road, Panjara Pole, Pratyakshkar Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad – & Bhavan, Ambawadi, 380006 (Gujarat) Ahmedabad Address In A.Ys. 2010-11 Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax Vijay M. Mistry Cons. P. Range-8, B-209, 2Nd Floor, Ltd. Panjara Pole, Pratyakshkar “Mistry House”, 9, Preyas Bhavan, Ambawadi, Society, Opp. Gulbai Ahmedabad Tekra Police Choki & Ambawadi, Ahmedabad – 380015 Address In A.Ys. 2011-12 Vijay M. Mistry Cons. P. Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income Tax (Osd) & Circle–8, B-209, 2Nd Floor, “Mistry House”, 9, Preyas Panjara Pole, Pratyakshkar Society, Opp. Gulbai Bhavan, Ambawadi, Tekra Police Choki, Ahmedabad Ambawadi, Ahmedabad –

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)Section 80I

…rt of the contention, the assessee further relied upon the following judgments: 1. CIT Vs J.H. Golta 156ITR 323(SC) 2. Mysore Minerals Ltd Vs CIT 239 ITR 775(SC) 3. Kerala State Industrial Development Corpn Ltd Vs CIT 259 ITR 51(SC) 4. Bajaj Tempo Ltd Vs CIT 196 ITR 188(SC) 5. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and Others Vs CIT 227 ITR 414(SC) 6. CIT Vs Strawboard Manufacturing Co Ltd 177 ITR 431(SC) However, such plea taken by the assessee was not found to be acceptable and, thus, the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act was completed on 23.12.2009 disallowing the claim made under Section 80IA o…

Vijay M.Mistry Construction Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT., Circle-8, Ahmedabad

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2938/AHD/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Dec 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2938/Ahd/2011, 2939/Ahd/2011, 2286/Ahd/2012, 268/Ahd/2015, 269/Ahd/2015, 502/Ahd/2017, 1145/Ahd/2019 & 1468/Ahd/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2016-17) Address In A.Ys. 2007-08, बनाम/ 2008-09 & 2009-10 Vs. Vijay M. Mistry Cons. P. Asst. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income Tax Circle–8, B-209, 2Nd Floor, 501, Swagat, C. G. Road, Panjara Pole, Pratyakshkar Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad – & Bhavan, Ambawadi, 380006 (Gujarat) Ahmedabad Address In A.Ys. 2010-11 Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax Vijay M. Mistry Cons. P. Range-8, B-209, 2Nd Floor, Ltd. Panjara Pole, Pratyakshkar “Mistry House”, 9, Preyas Bhavan, Ambawadi, Society, Opp. Gulbai Ahmedabad Tekra Police Choki & Ambawadi, Ahmedabad – 380015 Address In A.Ys. 2011-12 Vijay M. Mistry Cons. P. Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income Tax (Osd) & Circle–8, B-209, 2Nd Floor, “Mistry House”, 9, Preyas Panjara Pole, Pratyakshkar Society, Opp. Gulbai Bhavan, Ambawadi, Tekra Police Choki, Ahmedabad Ambawadi, Ahmedabad –

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)Section 80I

…rt of the contention, the assessee further relied upon the following judgments: 1. CIT Vs J.H. Golta 156ITR 323(SC) 2. Mysore Minerals Ltd Vs CIT 239 ITR 775(SC) 3. Kerala State Industrial Development Corpn Ltd Vs CIT 259 ITR 51(SC) 4. Bajaj Tempo Ltd Vs CIT 196 ITR 188(SC) 5. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and Others Vs CIT 227 ITR 414(SC) 6. CIT Vs Strawboard Manufacturing Co Ltd 177 ITR 431(SC) However, such plea taken by the assessee was not found to be acceptable and, thus, the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act was completed on 23.12.2009 disallowing the claim made under Section 80IA o…

Ernakulam Regional Cooperative Milk Producers Unions Ltd., Kochi vs. ACIT, Circle 1(1), Kochi

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 588/COCH/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Dec 2022AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Radhesh L. Bhat, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR
Section 143(2)Section 32(1)Section 32(1)(iia)

…additional depreciation is a one-time benefit, the relevant provisions have to be construed reasonably liberally and purposively to make the provision meaningful by relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Courtin the case of Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. CIT, (1992) 196 ITR 188 (SC). 3. The AO did not accept the submissions of the assessee and disallowed the depreciation claimed by the assessee. The AO also noticed that the assessee has received a grant of Rs.3,72,58,000. The AO held that the said grant should have been reduced from the value of block of assets and the depreciation should have been claimed on the reduc…

DCIT-Ltu - 2, Mumbai vs. Ambuja Cements Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2958/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2022AY 2010-11
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ITA Nos. 1889 and 1241/Mum/2018, 2384, 2958, 3475 and 3843/Mum/2019 Assessment years: 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 Page 1 of 99 THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI K BENCH, MUMBAI [Coram: Pramod Kumar (Vice President), and Sandeep S Karhail (Judicial Member)] ITA No.2384 and 3475/Mum/2019 and 1241/Mum/2018 Assessment years: 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 Ambuja Cement Limited .…………………………Appellant (formerly known as Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd.) Elegant Business Park, MIDC Cross Road B, Andheri (E) Mumbai 400 059 [PAN: AAACG0569P] Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Large Tax Payer Unit, Mumbai ……………...………

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Altruist Technologies Pvt Ltd

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/14/2021HC Himachal Pradesh15 Sept 2022

Bench: Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan & Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh Income Tax Appeal No.14 Of 2021. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Shimla.

Section 80Section 80I

…nd Unit-III. 10. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel for the assessee-company, has placed reliance on a decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled “Bajaj Tempo Ltd. versus Commissioner of Income Tax”, reported in (1992) 3 SCC 78, wherein, it was held as under:- “9.Initial exercise, therefore, should be to find out if the undertaking was new. Once this test is satisfied then clause (1) should be applied reasonably and liberally in keeping with spirit of Section 15-C (1) of the Act. While doing so various situations may arise for instance the formation may be without anything…

The Jt. Comm. of Income Tax (OSD) Cent. Cir-6(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. Cosmos En Terprises, Thane

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1744/MUM/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blejt.Cit(Osd)-Central Circle – 6(4) V. M/S. Cosmos Enterprises Room No. 1925, 19Th Floor 201, “Arihant”, Parsi Agyari Lane Air India Building, Nariman Point Tembhi Naka, Thane (W) Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai – 400602 Pan: Aaefc2382F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi Department By : Shri Nihar Ranjan Samal

For Appellant: Shri Subodh RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: Shri Nihar Ranjan Samal
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 80I

…ons of the assessee, Assessing Officer finally concluded that assessee has violated the provisions of section 80IB(10) of the Act in particular Clause (a), (c) of the Act and he distinguished the case law relied by the assessee in the case of Bajaj tempo Ltd [196 ITR 188 (SC)]. He observed that assessee constructed residential units of more than 1000 Sq. ft of buildup areas in contravention to the approved plan by making structural changes, which was also confirmed by Government Approved architect in his report. He observed that the assessee in fact has constructed some residential units having carpet area of mor…

Parvinder Kaur, Jaipur vs. PCIT-1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 64/JPR/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Aug 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, C.A.&For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54Section 54BSection 54F

…vk;dj आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर vk;dj vk;dj अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर U;k;ihB] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR lnL; ds le{k MkWaMkWaMkWaMkWa- ,e ,e- ,y ,y- ehuk] ys[kk lnL; ehuk] ys[kk lnL; ,oa ,e ,e ,y ,y ehuk] ys[kk lnL; ehuk] ys[kk lnL; ,oa ,oa MkWaMkWaMkWaMkWa- ,l-lhrk ,oa lhrk lhrk y{eh lhrk y{eh y{eh] U;kf;d y{eh ] U;kf;d ] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k ] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. M.L. MEENA, AM & DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J. M. vk;dj vk;dj vk;dj vihy la vk;dj vihy la vihy la-@I.T…

Dr. Sheela Puttabuddi, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 3(3)(5), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 293/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Ravi Shankar, AdvoicateFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 54

…verify compliance and must not be interpreted literally, unlike charging sections which are to be construed strictly. In support of this proposition, we place reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. CIT (1992) 196 ITR 188 (SC) and CIT v. Gwalior Rayon Silk Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (1992) 196 ITR 149 (SC). 17. As observed by us that the bonafides of the assessee cannot be doubted, since the assessee has made deposits into the capital gains scheme immediately and thereupon made payments to the developer to acquire the new house property. The assessee was also prevent…