CIT v. Anriya Project Management (Services) Pvt. Ltd.

21 Taxmann.com 140High Court2012#17191 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 350,364 Indian tax judgments — from 2014 to 2017.

Judgments citing CIT v. Anriya Project Management (Services) Pvt. Ltd.

DCIT, Chennai vs. Acestar Properties Pvt Ltd., Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 860/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Apr 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.858, 859 & 860/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Supriyo Pal, JCITFor Respondent: Sh. B. Ramakrishnan, CA
Section 80

…High Court after considering the unreported judgment of Bombay High Court in CIT v. M/s Tinnwala Industries in Tax Appeal No.3315 of 2010 dated 13.04.2012 and the judgment of Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Anriya Project Management (Services) Pvt. Ltd. (2012) 21 Taxmann.com 140, found that the word “built-up area’ has to be given the same meaning as in the Development Control Rules. The High Court found that the local authority has excluded open terrace area from working of built-up area. Therefore, it is not open to the Revenue to review the approval given by the competent authority to hold that terrace also inc…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Acestar Properties Pvt Ltd., Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 859/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.858, 859 & 860/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Supriyo Pal, JCITFor Respondent: Sh. B. Ramakrishnan, CA
Section 80

…High Court after considering the unreported judgment of Bombay High Court in CIT v. M/s Tinnwala Industries in Tax Appeal No.3315 of 2010 dated 13.04.2012 and the judgment of Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Anriya Project Management (Services) Pvt. Ltd. (2012) 21 Taxmann.com 140, found that the word “built-up area’ has to be given the same meaning as in the Development Control Rules. The High Court found that the local authority has excluded open terrace area from working of built-up area. Therefore, it is not open to the Revenue to review the approval given by the competent authority to hold that terrace also inc…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Acestar Properties Pvt Ltd., Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 858/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.858, 859 & 860/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Supriyo Pal, JCITFor Respondent: Sh. B. Ramakrishnan, CA
Section 80

…High Court after considering the unreported judgment of Bombay High Court in CIT v. M/s Tinnwala Industries in Tax Appeal No.3315 of 2010 dated 13.04.2012 and the judgment of Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Anriya Project Management (Services) Pvt. Ltd. (2012) 21 Taxmann.com 140, found that the word “built-up area’ has to be given the same meaning as in the Development Control Rules. The High Court found that the local authority has excluded open terrace area from working of built-up area. Therefore, it is not open to the Revenue to review the approval given by the competent authority to hold that terrace also inc…

ITO WD 1(2), Kalyan vs. Kantilal Dhanraj Jain (HUF), Bhiwandi

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2743/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2743/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Income Tax Officer, Kantilal Dhanraj Jain (Huf) बनाम/ Ward 1(2), Kalyan, 1St Floor, H. No. 64/2, 1St Floor, Mohan Plaza, Wayale Nagar, Malani Bhuwan, Prabhu Ali, Vs. Khadakpada, Kalyan Mandai, Bhiwandi – 421 302 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabhj 8351 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri B. S. Bist ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Sejal Lalit Jain सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 16.11.2015 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 27.11.2015 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Revenue Arising Out Of The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Thane (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 16.01.2014, Partly Allowing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting Its Assessment U/S.143(3) R/W S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2006-07 Vide Order Dated 30.12.2010. 2. The Only Issue Arising Per The Instant Appeal Is The Validity Of The Deletion Of The Disallowance Of The Assessee’S, A Huf In The Business Of Property Development, Claim

For Appellant: Shri B. S. BistFor Respondent: Ms. Sejal Lalit Jain
Section 143(3)Section 80

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “एक-सद"य मामला” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI "ी संजय अरोड़ा, लेखा सद"य के सम" । BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, AM आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2743/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Income Tax Officer, Kantilal Dhanraj Jain (HUF) बनाम/ Ward 1(2), Kalyan, 1st Floor, H. No. 64/2, 1st floor, Mohan Plaza, Wayale Nagar, Malani Bhuwan, Prabhu Ali, Vs. Khadakpada, Kalyan Mandai, Bhiwandi – 421 302 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. AABHJ 8351 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by : Shri B. S. Bist ""यथ" क" ओ…

Commissioner Income Tax-I vs. Chd Developers Ltd

ITA/298/2013HC Delhi22 Jan 2014

Bench: Substitution By Finance (No.2) Act, 2004, Stood As Under:

Section 18Section 39Section 80Section 80I

…ITA 298/2013 Page 1 of 21 $~6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 22nd January, 2014 + ITA 298/2013 COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX-I ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Rohit Madan with Mr. P. Roy Chaudhuri, Advocates versus CHD DEVELOPERS LTD. .....Respondent Through: Mr. S. Krishnan, Advocate. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT: (OPEN COURT) The substantial question of law urged in this appeal by the revenue pertains…

CIT v. Anriya Project Management (Services) Pvt. Ltd. (21 Taxmann.com 140) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax