CIT v. Brahma Associates

333 ITR 289High Court2011#1171 most cited

What is CIT v. Brahma Associates authority for?

A developer is entitled to proportionate deduction under Section 80IB(10) for housing projects even if certain conditions, such as unit built-up area limits, are not fully met across all units. Additionally, the conditions introduced by Section 80IB(10)(d) apply prospectively to projects commenced and sanctioned before April 1, 2005.

97

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2014 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Brahma Associates · Brahma Associates · Section 80IB(10) · proportionate deduction · housing project deduction · built-up area limits · Section 80IB(10)(d) prospective application · project completion condition · commercial area limit

Also reported as

197 Taxmann 4599 Taxmann.com 289

Sections most often in play

Section 80IB(10)Section 144Section 147Section 80IBSection 80IB(10)(d)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

Issues it is cited on

section 80ib(10)section 80ibsection 80itax benefitsection 80prescribedsection 11section 143(3)companysection 143total incomeappeal before the tribunal

Judgments citing CIT v. Brahma Associates

The DCIT, Central Circle - 2, Hyderabad vs. M/S. Engineers Reddy P. Ltd, Hyderabad

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1484/HYD/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jan 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

For Appellant: Shri A. SrinivasFor Respondent: Smt. S. Narasamma
Section 40

…for grant of relief under Section 17 I.T.A. No. 1139/Hyd/17 and others Janapriya Engineers Syndicate Ltd., Hyd and others 80IB(10) of the Act on a proportionate basis, by following the decision of the Bombay High Court reported in ITA No.2004/PN/2014 [2011] 333 ITR 289 (CIT Vs. Brahma Associates). Thus applying the decision of this Court in T.C.Nos.1348 and 1349 of 2007 dated 10.10.2012, we hold that the assessee is entitled to succeed both on the principle of proportionality as well as by reason of the construction on the meaning of the expression "housing project" as referring to construction of any building…

M/S Bengal Shristi Infrastructure Development Limited, Durgapur vs. ACIT, Circle-2, Durgapur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 1990/KOL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Dec 2018AY 2010-11
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40Section 80

…ssment Year: 2010-11 M/s. Bengal Shristi Infrastructure Development Ltd 2007 dated 10.10.2012 for grant of relief under Section 80IB(10) of the Act on a proportionate basis, by following the decision of the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Brahma Associates [2011] 333 ITR 289/197 Taxman 459/9 taxmann.com 289. Thus applying the decision of this Court in T.C. Nos. 1348 and 1349 of 2007 dated 10.10.2012, we hold that the assessee is entitled to succeed both on the principle of proportionality as well as by reason of the construction on the meaning of the expression "housing project" as referring to construction of any bu…

Income-Tax Officer vs. M/S. Sai Siddhi Atul Enterprises, Pune

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2420/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Prasad
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…ct of completed unit to the assessee. 7. The allowability of proportionate deduction u/s. 80IB(10) in respect of completed units is no more res integra. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Brahma Associates reported as 333 ITR 289, Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vandana Properties (supra), the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Arun Excello Foundations (P) Ltd. reported as 259 CTR 362 have approved allowing of proportionate deduction u/s. 80IB(10) in respect of completed eligible units. The Tribunal in catena of orders have been consist…

M/S. Shree Mukund & Shreyas Developers, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 1672/PUN/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1672/Pun/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Prateek Jha &For Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav
Section 80I

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “ए” "यायपीठ पुणे म" । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE "ी डी. क"णाकरा राव,लेखा सद"य, एवं "ी "वकास अव"थी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1672/PUN/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/s. Shree Mukund & Shreyas Developers. 5, Shriram Apartments, 1126/A, Near Hotel Ambassador, Model Colony, Shivaji Nagar, Pune-411 016. PAN : AABAS0344K …....अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Pune. ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Prateek Jha & Shri Prayag Jha Revenue b…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Tdi Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 4184/DEL/2014[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Adv.; &For Respondent: Shri Vijay Varma, CIT [DR]
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…ITAs. 4182, 4183 & 4184 (Del) of 2014. TDI Infrastructure. 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCHES : “ D ” NEW DELHI ] BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I. T. Appeal Nos. 4182, 4183 & 4184 (Del) of 2014 Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13. Deputy Commissioner M/s. TDI Infrastructure Ltd., of Income Tax, Vs. 9 – Kasturba Gandhi Marg, Central Circle : 18, New Delhi – 110 057. N e w D e l h i. PAN : AAACI 5799 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Salil Aggarwal, Adv.; & Shri Shailesh Gupta, C. A.; Department by : Shri Vi…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Tdi Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 4183/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Adv.; &For Respondent: Shri Vijay Varma, CIT [DR]
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…ITAs. 4182, 4183 & 4184 (Del) of 2014. TDI Infrastructure. 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCHES : “ D ” NEW DELHI ] BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I. T. Appeal Nos. 4182, 4183 & 4184 (Del) of 2014 Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13. Deputy Commissioner M/s. TDI Infrastructure Ltd., of Income Tax, Vs. 9 – Kasturba Gandhi Marg, Central Circle : 18, New Delhi – 110 057. N e w D e l h i. PAN : AAACI 5799 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Salil Aggarwal, Adv.; & Shri Shailesh Gupta, C. A.; Department by : Shri Vi…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Tdi Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 4182/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Adv.; &For Respondent: Shri Vijay Varma, CIT [DR]
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…ITAs. 4182, 4183 & 4184 (Del) of 2014. TDI Infrastructure. 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCHES : “ D ” NEW DELHI ] BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I. T. Appeal Nos. 4182, 4183 & 4184 (Del) of 2014 Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13. Deputy Commissioner M/s. TDI Infrastructure Ltd., of Income Tax, Vs. 9 – Kasturba Gandhi Marg, Central Circle : 18, New Delhi – 110 057. N e w D e l h i. PAN : AAACI 5799 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Salil Aggarwal, Adv.; & Shri Shailesh Gupta, C. A.; Department by : Shri Vi…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S. Om Associates, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1031/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.1031/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 वष"

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Navaljit Kapoor, CIT
Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…d Others 122 TTJ 433 (SB) (Pune), denied the entire claim of deduction u/s.80IB(10) of the Act by holding as holder : “20. The issue of pro-rata deduction has been set to rest by the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Brahma Associates 333 ITR 289 wherein the Hon’ble Court has held that the question of allowing deduction to a part of the project does not arise. The observations of the Hon’ble High Court is reproduced as under : 28. In the present case, though the commercial user is more than 10 percent of the plot area, the tribunal has allowed s.80IB(10) deduction in respect of 15 residen…

Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax (OSD) vs. Prithvi Erectors & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Pune

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 927/PUN/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Deven ShethFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi
Section 80ISection 80l

…to 2008-09 built up area of two flats of the projects exceeded the prescribed area of 1500 sq ft, violating clause (c) to section 80lB (10) of the Act and without appreciating the fact that jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Brahma Associates, 333 ITR 289 held deduction is allowable on the entire projects approved by the local authority and there is no question of allowing deduction to a part of the project. 7) The appellant craves leave to Add, Amend, alter or delete any of the above grounds of appeal during the course of appellate proceedings.” Identical grounds have been raised by the Revenue…

Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax (OSD) vs. Prithvi Erectors & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Pune

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 926/PUN/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Deven ShethFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi
Section 80ISection 80l

…to 2008-09 built up area of two flats of the projects exceeded the prescribed area of 1500 sq ft, violating clause (c) to section 80lB (10) of the Act and without appreciating the fact that jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Brahma Associates, 333 ITR 289 held deduction is allowable on the entire projects approved by the local authority and there is no question of allowing deduction to a part of the project. 7) The appellant craves leave to Add, Amend, alter or delete any of the above grounds of appeal during the course of appellate proceedings.” Identical grounds have been raised by the Revenue…

Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax (OSD) vs. Prithvi Erectors & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Pune

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 925/PUN/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 May 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Deven ShethFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi
Section 80ISection 80l

…to 2008-09 built up area of two flats of the projects exceeded the prescribed area of 1500 sq ft, violating clause (c) to section 80lB (10) of the Act and without appreciating the fact that jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Brahma Associates, 333 ITR 289 held deduction is allowable on the entire projects approved by the local authority and there is no question of allowing deduction to a part of the project. 7) The appellant craves leave to Add, Amend, alter or delete any of the above grounds of appeal during the course of appellate proceedings.” Identical grounds have been raised by the Revenue…

Manjeera Projects, Hyd, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 1082/HYD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Dr. K. Srinivas Reddy, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 80Section 801B(10)Section 80I

…of the Act, we have already upheld the case of the assessee in T.C.Nos.1348 and 1349 of 2007 dated 10.10.2012 for grant of relief under Section 80IB(10) of the Act on a proportionate basis, by following the decision of the Bombay High Court reported in [2011] 333 ITR 289 (CIT Page 19 of 23 ITA Nos 1704 1082 and 1230 Manjeera Projects Hyderabad. Vs. Brahma Associates). Thus applying the decision of this Court in T.C.Nos.1348 and 1349 of 2007 dated 10.10.2012, we hold that the assessee is entitled to succeed both on the principle of proportionality as well as by reason of the construction on the meaning of the…

Manjeera Projects, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-6(2), Hyderabad

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 1230/HYD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Dr. K. Srinivas Reddy, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 80Section 801B(10)Section 80I

…of the Act, we have already upheld the case of the assessee in T.C.Nos.1348 and 1349 of 2007 dated 10.10.2012 for grant of relief under Section 80IB(10) of the Act on a proportionate basis, by following the decision of the Bombay High Court reported in [2011] 333 ITR 289 (CIT Page 19 of 23 ITA Nos 1704 1082 and 1230 Manjeera Projects Hyderabad. Vs. Brahma Associates). Thus applying the decision of this Court in T.C.Nos.1348 and 1349 of 2007 dated 10.10.2012, we hold that the assessee is entitled to succeed both on the principle of proportionality as well as by reason of the construction on the meaning of the…

Manjeera Projects, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-6(2), Hyderabad

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 1704/HYD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Dr. K. Srinivas Reddy, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 80Section 801B(10)Section 80I

…of the Act, we have already upheld the case of the assessee in T.C.Nos.1348 and 1349 of 2007 dated 10.10.2012 for grant of relief under Section 80IB(10) of the Act on a proportionate basis, by following the decision of the Bombay High Court reported in [2011] 333 ITR 289 (CIT Page 19 of 23 ITA Nos 1704 1082 and 1230 Manjeera Projects Hyderabad. Vs. Brahma Associates). Thus applying the decision of this Court in T.C.Nos.1348 and 1349 of 2007 dated 10.10.2012, we hold that the assessee is entitled to succeed both on the principle of proportionality as well as by reason of the construction on the meaning of the…

Maruti Estate (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 321/CTK/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 Apr 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2004-05

For Appellant: Shri P.R.Mohanty, ARFor Respondent: Shri A. Tigga, DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 80I

…Asse ssment Year : 20 04- 05 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE S/SHRI N.S SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2004-05 Maruti Estates (India) Pvt Vs. ACIT, Circle -2(1), Ltd., Plot No.516/1755, 4th Bhubaneswar. floor, Maruti Corner, Patia Big Bazar, Patia, Bhubaneswar. PAN/GIR No.AACCM 1339 D (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee by : Shri P.R.Mohanty, AR Revenue by : Shri A. Tigga, DR Date of Hearing : 12/04/ 2018 Date of Pronouncement : 17 /04/ 2018 O R D E R Per N.S.Saini, AM This is an appeal filed by the assessee against…

Vijay Grihnirman P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 15 & 16, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3280/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2011-12 Vijay Grihanirman P. Ltd. Acit, 205, Marine Chambers, Central Circle-15 & 16, बनाम/ 43, New Marine Line, Mumbai Vs. Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacv2806N Shri Rajat Mittal-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Mani Jain & Shri Prateek Jain

Section 80I

…ve already upheld the case of the assessee in T.C. Nos.1348 and 1349 of 2007 dated 10.10.2012 for grant of relief under Section 80IB(10) of the Act on a proportionate basis, by following the decision of the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Brahma Associates [2011] 333 ITR 289/ 197 Taxman 459 / 9 taxmann.com 289. Thus applying the decision of this Court in T.C. Nos. 1348 and 1349 of 2007 dated 10.10.2012, we hold that the assessee is entitled to succeed both on the principle of proportionality as well as by reason of the construction on the meaning of the expression "housing project" as referring to construction of any…

Om Sawmi Smaran Developers P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 8(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6355/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal
Section 115JSection 131Section 133(6)Section 80I

…herwise are complying to the conditions of section 80IB(10) cannot be disallowed. The disallowance, if any, has to be restricted to the flats which violate the conditions of section 80IB(10). The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT v/s Bramha Associates, 333 ITR 289, has held that deduction under section 80IB(10) can be allowed on proportionate basis in respect of flats which fulfilled the conditions of section 80IB(10). The same view was expressed by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the decisions cited by the learned Authorised Representative. In our view, the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decisions, tho…

The ITO, Ward-9(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Shri Hari Associates, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1874/AHD/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Aug 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Royincome Tax Appeal No.1874/Ahd/2011 (Assessment Year : 2008-09) & Income Tax (Search &Seizer)Appeal Nos. 128, 129 &130/Ahd/2014 (Assessment Years : 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08)

For Appellant: Shri Jagdish, CIT-D.RFor Respondent: Shri P. M. Mehta, A.R
Section 143(3)Section 53ASection 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER& Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Income Tax Appeal No.1874/Ahd/2011 (Assessment Year : 2008-09) And Income Tax (Search &Seizer)Appeal Nos. 128, 129 &130/Ahd/2014 (Assessment Years : 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08) Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/s. Shri Hari Associates, Ward – 9(1), F/1, Trimurti Complex, Ahmedabad. Thakkar Bapa Nagar Road, Bapunagar, Ahmedabad. [PAN No.AASFS 6951 Q] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Jagdish, CIT-D.R. Respondentby: Shri P. M. Mehta, A.R. Date of Hearing : 07.02.201…

M/S. Chitrakoot Merchandise Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 6802/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Sudesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Naveen Chandra, CIT(DR)
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 144Section 153CSection 68

…n of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manish Maheshwari 289 ITR 34 relates to 158 BC proceedings and this case has already been considered and distinguished by Hon'ble High Courts in the case of Panchajanyam Management Agencies and Services (Kerala HC) 333 ITR 289, Gopal Lal Bhadruka ( Andhra 35 Pradesh HC) 346 ITR 106, Dr. K. M. Mehboob (Kerala HC) 211 Taxman 52, Panchuram Deshmukh 133 TT J 53 (Bilaspur ITAT) and many other decisions of Hon'ble High Courts/ITAT dealing with section 153A1153C cases and decided In favour of Revenue. • Decisions of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pepsi Foods P…

M/S. Chitrakoot Merchandise Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 6801/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Sudesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Naveen Chandra, CIT(DR)
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 144Section 153CSection 68

…n of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manish Maheshwari 289 ITR 34 relates to 158 BC proceedings and this case has already been considered and distinguished by Hon'ble High Courts in the case of Panchajanyam Management Agencies and Services (Kerala HC) 333 ITR 289, Gopal Lal Bhadruka ( Andhra 35 Pradesh HC) 346 ITR 106, Dr. K. M. Mehboob (Kerala HC) 211 Taxman 52, Panchuram Deshmukh 133 TT J 53 (Bilaspur ITAT) and many other decisions of Hon'ble High Courts/ITAT dealing with section 153A1153C cases and decided In favour of Revenue. • Decisions of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pepsi Foods P…