CIT v. ABG Heavy Industries Ltd.

322 ITR 323High Court2010#382 most cited

What is CIT v. ABG Heavy Industries Ltd. authority for?

The Assessing Officer cannot deny a Section 80IA deduction by merely asserting that the assessee is not a "developer" without considering the relevant agreements and facts. Entitlement to Section 80IA deduction requires a thorough examination of the assessee's role as a developer.

229

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. ABG Heavy Industries Ltd. · 322 ITR 323 · Section 80IA · deduction u/s 80IA · developer status · infrastructure facility · eligible business · Assessing Officer observation · binding precedent · claim denial

Also reported as

189 Taxmann 54

Sections most often in play

Section 80IASection 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(2)(a)(i)Section 80P(4)Section 80IA(4)Section 143(1)Section 37Section 80P(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 80ia(13)section 56(i)(ccv)section 80ia(4)(i)section 80ia(4)infrastructure facilitydeduction u/s 80iadeduction under section 80iasection 80iatax benefitsection 80p(1)section 80ieligible business

Judgments citing CIT v. ABG Heavy Industries Ltd.

PREMIUM TOWER CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 24(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 2436/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 250Section 80Section 80P(2)(d)

…le High Court was, whether the interest income earned from deposits with the banks is eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2). The Hon’ble Kerala High Court has also considered the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Totagars Cooperative Societies Ltd. 322 ITR 323, wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held that interest income earned from district cooperative bank or state cooperative bank, come within the ambit of section 80P (2)(d), therefore the income constitutes income from other sources and it is eligible for deduction covered u/s 80P(2)(d). Otherwise section 80P(2)(d) specifies any income by way of in…

SHIV SAGAR BUSINESS PREMISES CO OP SOC. LTD ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 22(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 3104/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(1)Section 2Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…le High Court was, whether the interest income earned from deposits with the banks is eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2). The Hon’ble Kerala High Court has also considered the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Totagars Cooperative Societies Ltd. 322 ITR 323, wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held that interest income earned from district cooperative bank or state cooperative bank, come within the ambit of section 80P (2)(d), therefore the income constitutes income from other sources and it is eligible for deduction covered u/s 80P(2)(d). Otherwise section 80P(2)(d) specifies any income by way of in…

ACIT CIRCLE 10(1), NEW DELHI vs. IRCON INTERNATIONAL LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the Revenue are dismissed as above

ITA 1108/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 115JSection 14ASection 80I

…the revenue are clearly misplaced on facts and are clearly distinguishable. Special bench decision in the case of B. T. Patil (Mum.) 126 TTJ 577 was recalled later on as it did not consider the binding decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of ABG 322 ITR 323 (Bom). According to the assessment order, copies of all the agreements were before Assessing Officer yet assessing officer chose to make sweeping observation that the assessee is not developer. Such sweeping and bald assertion cannot be approved by us. Therefore, taking into the facts of the present case, we are the considered view that appellant…

ACIT, CIRCLE-10(1), NEW DELHI vs. IRCON INTERNATIONAL LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the Revenue are dismissed as above

ITA 1104/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 115JSection 14ASection 80I

…the revenue are clearly misplaced on facts and are clearly distinguishable. Special bench decision in the case of B. T. Patil (Mum.) 126 TTJ 577 was recalled later on as it did not consider the binding decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of ABG 322 ITR 323 (Bom). According to the assessment order, copies of all the agreements were before Assessing Officer yet assessing officer chose to make sweeping observation that the assessee is not developer. Such sweeping and bald assertion cannot be approved by us. Therefore, taking into the facts of the present case, we are the considered view that appellant…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, COIMBATORE vs. M/S. RP INFRA PROJECTS LIMITED, ERODE

In the result, all these four appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 335/CHNY/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr. Shivanand K. Kalakeri, CITFor Respondent: Mr. N.Arjun Raj, Advocate
Section 250(1)Section 80Section 80I

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी मनु कुमार िग"र ,"ाियक सद" एवं "ी एस . आर . रघुनाथा, लेखा सद" के सम& BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.R.RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.333, 334, & 335/Chny/2021 and ITA No.847/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2017-18 and 2016-17) Vs M/s. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, RPP Infra Projects Central Circle-2, Limited, Coimbatore. SF No.454, Ragupathynaickenpalayam, Erode-638 002. PAN :AAACR-9307-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, COIMBATORE vs. M/S RPP INFRA PROJECTS LIMITED, ERODE

In the result, all these four appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 333/CHNY/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr. Shivanand K. Kalakeri, CITFor Respondent: Mr. N.Arjun Raj, Advocate
Section 250(1)Section 80Section 80I

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी मनु कुमार िग"र ,"ाियक सद" एवं "ी एस . आर . रघुनाथा, लेखा सद" के सम& BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.R.RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.333, 334, & 335/Chny/2021 and ITA No.847/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2017-18 and 2016-17) Vs M/s. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, RPP Infra Projects Central Circle-2, Limited, Coimbatore. SF No.454, Ragupathynaickenpalayam, Erode-638 002. PAN :AAACR-9307-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ…

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. OCEAN SPARKLE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1017/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1017/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Acit Vs. Ocean Sparkle Ltd Circle 5 ( 1 ) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaaco2519H (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate Saurabh Soparkar राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 04/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 11/03/2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Advocate Saurabh SoparkarFor Respondent: : Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR
Section 80I

…case held the requirement of section 80IA(4)(1)(b) is waived by the proviso to section 801A. Page 25 of 31 ITA No 1017 of 2024 Ocean Sparkle Ltd This interpretation has also been endorsed by the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. ABG Industries Ltd. (322 ITR 323) at page 330 : "By the Finance Act 2001 the word 'or' came to be introduced after the word developing', to clarify in effect that the agreement between the enterprise and the authority of the central or state govt. or, as the case may be a local authority or a statutory body may provide for (i) Developing or (ii) Maintaining and operating or (iii…

PREMIUM TOWER COOP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 24(3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 38/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS. PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

…le High Court was, whether the interest income earned from deposits with the banks is eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2). The Hon’ble Kerala High Court has also considered the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Totagars Cooperative Societies Ltd. 322 ITR 323, wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held that interest income earned from district cooperative bank or state cooperative bank, come within the ambit of section 80P (2)(d), therefore the income constitutes income from other sources and it is eligible for deduction covered u/s 80P(2)(d). Otherwise section 80P(2)(d) specifies any income by way of in…

ACIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD vs. NCC HES JV, MADHAPUR

ITA 689/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2025AY 2020-21
For Appellant: \nShri S. Ramarao, AdvocateFor Respondent: \nMs. M. Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80I

…under Explanation to section 80IA of the Act and therefore, not entitled\nfor the impugned deduction.\n14. The assessee next made a very strong endeavour to place reliance on\na catena of case law (supra) including CIT Vs. ABG Heavy Industries\nLimited (2010) 322 ITR 323 (Bom). We find that neither of these decisions\ndealt with the interplay between the section 80IAH) vs.80IA Explanation\ninvolving execution of works contract as the factual position before us.\nThe said case law distinguished, therefore.\n15. Mr. Afzal's last argument seems to buttress the point that such a\nstrict interpretation is to be made a…

ACIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD vs. NCC HES JV, MADHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 688/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramarao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. M. Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80I

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B”, HYDERABAD (Through Virtual Hearing) BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अपी.सं / ITA Nos.682, 688 and 689/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2020-21) The Assistant NCC HES JV, Commissioner of Income Vs. Madhapur, Tax, Circle 8(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. PAN : AACAN7266L अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee by: Shri S. Ramarao, Advocate. रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue by: Ms. M. Narmada, CIT-DR. सुिवधई की…

ACIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD vs. NCC HES JV, HYDERABAD

ITA 682/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri S. Ramarao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. M. Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80I

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B”, HYDERABAD (Through Virtual Hearing) BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अपी.सं / ITA Nos.682, 688 and 689/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2020-21) | The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 8(1), Hyderabad. Vs. NCC HES JV, Madhapur, Hyderabad. PAN : AACAN7266L अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती द्वारा/Assessee by: Shri S. Ramarao, Advocate. राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue by: Ms. M. Narmada, CIT-DR. सुनवाई की त…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX ERSHTWHILE 26(1), NOW DCIT-41(1)(1) , MUMBAI vs. GULERMAK TPL JOINT VENTURE, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee and the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3020/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: FixedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry, Sr. Advocate & Hiten ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Kishor Dule, CIT D/R
Section 80I

…p vests with LMRCL and it is LMRCL which is carrying on the business of developing operating and maintaining of infrastructural facility i.e., underground Metrorail. 10. In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Central-II v. ABG Heavy Industries Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 323 (Bombay), the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court was seized with the fact that the assessee was responsible for supplying, installation, testing, commissioning and maintenance of cranes for the period of 10 years after which the cranes would rest with I.T.A. No. 3019/Mum/2022 I.T.A. No. 2876/Mum/2022 I.T.A. No. 3020/Mum/2022 I.T.A. No. 2875/Mum/20…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -ERSTWHILE 26(1) NOW DCIT41(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. GULEMARK TPL JOINT VENTURE, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee and the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3019/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: FixedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry, Sr. Advocate & Hiten ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Kishor Dule, CIT D/R
Section 80I

…p vests with LMRCL and it is LMRCL which is carrying on the business of developing operating and maintaining of infrastructural facility i.e., underground Metrorail. 10. In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Central-II v. ABG Heavy Industries Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 323 (Bombay), the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court was seized with the fact that the assessee was responsible for supplying, installation, testing, commissioning and maintenance of cranes for the period of 10 years after which the cranes would rest with I.T.A. No. 3019/Mum/2022 I.T.A. No. 2876/Mum/2022 I.T.A. No. 3020/Mum/2022 I.T.A. No. 2875/Mum/20…

GULERMAK TPL JOINT VENTURE ,MUMBAI vs. THE NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-APPEALS), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee and the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2876/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: FixedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry, Sr. Advocate & Hiten ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Kishor Dule, CIT D/R
Section 80I

…p vests with LMRCL and it is LMRCL which is carrying on the business of developing operating and maintaining of infrastructural facility i.e., underground Metrorail. 10. In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Central-II v. ABG Heavy Industries Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 323 (Bombay), the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court was seized with the fact that the assessee was responsible for supplying, installation, testing, commissioning and maintenance of cranes for the period of 10 years after which the cranes would rest with I.T.A. No. 3019/Mum/2022 I.T.A. No. 2876/Mum/2022 I.T.A. No. 3020/Mum/2022 I.T.A. No. 2875/Mum/20…

GULERMAK TPL JOINT VENTRE,MUMBAI vs. THE NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-APPEALS), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee and the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2875/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: FixedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry, Sr. Advocate & Hiten ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Kishor Dule, CIT D/R
Section 80I

…p vests with LMRCL and it is LMRCL which is carrying on the business of developing operating and maintaining of infrastructural facility i.e., underground Metrorail. 10. In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Central-II v. ABG Heavy Industries Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 323 (Bombay), the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court was seized with the fact that the assessee was responsible for supplying, installation, testing, commissioning and maintenance of cranes for the period of 10 years after which the cranes would rest with I.T.A. No. 3019/Mum/2022 I.T.A. No. 2876/Mum/2022 I.T.A. No. 3020/Mum/2022 I.T.A. No. 2875/Mum/20…

DCIT-1(2)1, MUMBAI., MUMBAI vs. PATIL CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue\nare dismissed

ITA 4944/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Mandar VaidyaFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. D/R
Section 801A

…98/Mum/2023. The Ld.AR also relied upon the decisions\nin the following cases:\n5\nआयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण\nINCOMETAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nΙ.Τ.Α. No. 4940/Mum/2024\nI.T.A. No. 4942/Mum/2024\nΙ.Τ.Α. No. 4944/Mum/2024\n1.\n(Bom)\n2.\nCIT Vs. ABG Heavy Industries Ltd. 322 ITR 323\nAdhunik Infrastructure Pvt Ltd.,Vs. JCIT, ITA No.\n1281/Kol/2015\n3.\nBhinmal Contractors Property and Land Developers\nP Ltd, Vs. ACIT, [2018] 93 taxmann.com 296 (Bom)\n4. Pr. CIT Vs. Montecarlo Construction Ltd, [2024] 161\ntaxmann.com 222 (Guj)\n7. We have heard the counsels for both the parties and\nhave gone through the documents placed on…

DCIT-1(2)1, MUMBAI., MUMBAI vs. PATIL CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue s filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4942/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon’Ble & Ms. Padmavathy S., Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Mandar VaidyaFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. D/R
Section 801A

…ied upon the decisions he decisions in the following cases: in the following cases: I.T.A. No. 4940/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 4940/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 4942/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 4942/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. I.T.A. No. 4944/Mum/2024 5 1. CIT Vs. ABG Heavy Industries Ltd. 322 ITR 323 CIT Vs. ABG Heavy Industries Ltd. 322 ITR 323 CIT Vs. ABG Heavy Industries Ltd. 322 ITR 323 (Bom) 2. Adhunik Infrastructure Pvt Ltd.,Vs. JCIT, ITA No. Adhunik Infrastructure Pvt Ltd.,Vs. JCIT, ITA No. Adhunik Infrastructure Pvt Ltd.,Vs. JCIT, ITA No. 1281/Kol/2015 1281/Kol/2015 3. Bhinmal Contractors Property and Land Developers Bhinmal Contracto…

DCIT-1(2)1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PATIL CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue s filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4940/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon’Ble & Ms. Padmavathy S., Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Mandar VaidyaFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. D/R
Section 801A

…ied upon the decisions he decisions in the following cases: in the following cases: I.T.A. No. 4940/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 4940/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 4942/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 4942/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. I.T.A. No. 4944/Mum/2024 5 1. CIT Vs. ABG Heavy Industries Ltd. 322 ITR 323 CIT Vs. ABG Heavy Industries Ltd. 322 ITR 323 CIT Vs. ABG Heavy Industries Ltd. 322 ITR 323 (Bom) 2. Adhunik Infrastructure Pvt Ltd.,Vs. JCIT, ITA No. Adhunik Infrastructure Pvt Ltd.,Vs. JCIT, ITA No. Adhunik Infrastructure Pvt Ltd.,Vs. JCIT, ITA No. 1281/Kol/2015 1281/Kol/2015 3. Bhinmal Contractors Property and Land Developers Bhinmal Contracto…

SMC INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, THANE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3497/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Kishor Dhule, CIT/DR &
Section 143(2)Section 801ASection 80I

…n this aspect in the order dated 31/10/2014 where in the issue of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act was decided in favour of the assessee by following the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of ABG Heavy Industries Pvt. Ltd., reported in 322 ITR 323. Similarly, for A.Y.2008-09, this Tribunal in assessee’s own case in ITA No.5503/Mum/2011 dated 14/11/2014 had decided the issue in favour of the assessee. Similarly, for A.Y.2009-10, this Tribunal in assessee’s own case in ITA Nos. 3500 and 4756/Mum/2015 dated 25/05/2017 had decided the issue in favour of the assessee. Thereafter, a search and s…

UNITED SHANTI KUTEER CO. OP. HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-17(2)(1), KAUTILYA BHAVAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4371/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2Section 4Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘H(SMC)’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER United Shanti Kuteer Vs. Income Tax Officer- Co-operative Housing 17(2)(1) Society Limited Kautilya Bhavan 215, Shanti Kuteer Bandra Kurla Complex Netaji Subhash Road Mumbai – 400 051 Mumbai – 400 020 PAN/GIR No.AAAAU0699L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Jigar Mehta, CA Revenue by Shri Uodal Raj Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 17/10/2024 Date of Pronouncement 30/10/2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the a…

Showing 1–20 of 229 · Page 1 of 12

...