CIT v. CHD Developers Ltd.

362 ITR 177High Court2014#3789 most cited

What is CIT v. CHD Developers Ltd. authority for?

A housing project approved before the amendment to Section 80IB(10) in 2005 is not subject to the conditions introduced by that amendment, such as the requirement for a completion certificate, if the assessee was not otherwise obligated to produce it.

32

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2022.

Also referred to as

CIT v. CHD Developers Ltd. · 362 ITR 177 · Section 80IB(10) · housing project · completion certificate · amendment date · deduction eligibility · pre-amendment approval

Also reported as

43 Taxmann.com 249

Judgments citing CIT v. CHD Developers Ltd.

DCIT, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S. JOY SYNDICATE & ENCLAVE PVT. LTD. , JAIPUR

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

ITA 102/JPR/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani ( C.A.)For Respondent: Ms Runi Pal (Addl. CIT)a fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 14ASection 801Section 80I

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR MkWa- ,l-lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 102/JP/2020 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2013-14 cuke The DCIT, M/s Joy Syndicate & Enclave Pvt. Ltd. Circle-3, Vs. G-10-11, Royal World, S.C. Road, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAACE5910E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Ms Runi Pal (Addl. CIT)a fu/kZkfjrh dh vks…

M/S AGARWAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY ,BHOPAL vs. DYPTI COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

ITA 596/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Mis Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing It(Ss)A Nos.233 To 238/Ind/2017 Assessment Year:2006-07 To 2011-12 M/S. Agrawal Construction Co. Acit, 1(1) बनाम/ Bhopal Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) Vs. P.A. No.Aaefa8225H It(Ss)A No.224 To 226/Ind/2017 Assessment Year:2009-10 To 2011-12 Acit, 1(1) M/S. Agrawal Construction बनाम/ Bhopal Co. Bhopal Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaefa8225H Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 3Section 801Section 80I

…refusal to grant the permission. The assessee otherwise has also submitted various documents which establish that the project was physically complete as per the approved Building plan prior to the statutory period. In the case of CIT vs. CHD Developers Ltd.; 362 ITR 177 (Del) the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held as under :- “Section 80-IB(10) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, before substitution by the Finance (No. 2)Act, 2004 allowed a hundred per cent deduction of the profits in the case of an undertaking developing and building housing projects approved before March 31, 2005, by a local authority. By the Finance…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-II, BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. M/S AGRAWAL CONSTRUCTION CO., BHOPAL

ITA 590/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Mis Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing It(Ss)A Nos.233 To 238/Ind/2017 Assessment Year:2006-07 To 2011-12 M/S. Agrawal Construction Co. Acit, 1(1) बनाम/ Bhopal Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) Vs. P.A. No.Aaefa8225H It(Ss)A No.224 To 226/Ind/2017 Assessment Year:2009-10 To 2011-12 Acit, 1(1) M/S. Agrawal Construction बनाम/ Bhopal Co. Bhopal Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaefa8225H Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 3Section 801Section 80I

…refusal to grant the permission. The assessee otherwise has also submitted various documents which establish that the project was physically complete as per the approved Building plan prior to the statutory period. In the case of CIT vs. CHD Developers Ltd.; 362 ITR 177 (Del) the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held as under :- “Section 80-IB(10) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, before substitution by the Finance (No. 2)Act, 2004 allowed a hundred per cent deduction of the profits in the case of an undertaking developing and building housing projects approved before March 31, 2005, by a local authority. By the Finance…

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

…e development authority on 26th March, 2003. The said condition was, thus, prospective and not applicable to projects approved prior to 01.04.2005. For the above proposition, the ld. Counsel relied on the following decisions:- (i) CIT vs. CHD Developers Ltd., 362 ITR 177 (Del); (ii) PCIT vs. Sahara States Gorakhpur, 418 ITR 168 (Allahabad); (iii) Sahara Estates, Hyderabad AOP vs. DCIT, ITA No.1886/Hyd/2011 16. The ld. Counsel, referring to the following additional evidences, submitted that the project was completed prior to 31st march, 2008:- (i) Letter from M/s Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd to the as…

M/S. SHIPRA ESTATE LTD.,GHAZIABAD vs. ACIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result ground number 4 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed and ground number [3]

ITA 740/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shipra Estate Ltd, Vs Acit, C/O. Pradeep & Co, Circle-2, Tax Advocates, Ghaziabad 7, Navyug Market, Ghaziabad Pan: Aaccs6116J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. S. Singhvi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary [CIT]–DR
Section 234BSection 234CSection 80Section 80I

…-off date 296 flats were already registered in favour of buyers by the GDA. This itself shows that the project was in fact completed before the cut-off date. He further referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. CHD Developers Ltd. in 362 ITR 177 (Del.) He specifically referred to Para No. 7 wherein para 8.16 identical facts were considered. He also referred to para No. 9 of that decision. He referred to para No. 10 of that decision wherein the claim of the assessee was allowed following the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court and Hon’ble Karnataka High Court. He further referred t…

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. M/S. PENTAGON DEVELOPERS,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 393/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri V.L. JainFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jha
Section 80I

…mpletion certificate from Local Authority should not prejudice assessee‟s claim of deduction u/s. 80IB(10) of the Act. The ld. AR in support of his contentions placed reliance on the following decisions : i. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. CHD Developers Ltd., 362 ITR 177 (Delhi); ii. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Hindustan Samuh Awas Ltd., 377 ITR 150 (Bom); iii. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Tarnetar Corporation, 362 ITR 174 (Guj). 5. We have heard the submissions made by representatives of rival sides and have perused the orders of authorities below. The deduction u/s. 80IB(10) of the Act has been disallowed…

ACIT 25(1), MUMBAI vs. AMBER ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5176/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri, Amarjit Singh Jm Acit 25(1) Vs. M/S. Amber Enterprises Mumbai – 400 051 7, Taren Compound Behind Krishna Hotel Dahisar (E) Mumbai – 400 068 Pan/Gir No. Aalfa3071G Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 80B(10)(f)Section 80FSection 80I

…as the amendment is not even stated to be for removal of doubts. On the contrary, this amendment shows that no such eligibility conditions could be read into pre-amendment legal position. [Para 8) We have also relied on the case of CIT vs. CHD developers Ltd; 362 ITR 177 (Dei), wherein it was held that project approved before amendment made does not fall in the purview of that condition and thus the conditions are not applicable. In this case, Assessee, a 23 M/s. Amber Enterprises real estate developer obtained approval for housing project on 16.05.2005 from the development Authority. It completed the project in…

ITO, WD-12(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S B. U. GARDENS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 598/KOL/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Mar 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey] I.T.A. No. 598/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-12(3), Kolkata…...….…….…………...……………………………………………….……..Appellant P-7, Chowringhee Square 7Th Floor Kolkata – 700 069 M/S. B.U. Gardens Pvt. Ltd.……………………………………………………………………………………......…..Respondent Anand Apartment 2 Rowland Road Kolkata – 700 020 [Pan : Aaccb 2595 A]

Section 250Section 80

…ence against the assessee specifically when no adverse material was with the Assessing Officer to negate the findings in the certificate. He relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner Income Tax-I vs Chd Developers Ltd. 362 ITR 177 (Delhi), in which he held that after a housing project is approved by the local authority, there is no need to get a completion certificate for the purpose of claiming deduction u/s 80-IB(10) of the Act and submitted that even if the Assessing Officer ignores this completion certificate, the assessee is eligible for claim of deduction u/s 80-IB(1…

MAVANI & SONS,MUMBAI vs. ITO 27(2)(2),

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1374/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhita No.1373/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year- 2008-09) Mavani & Sons Ito-27(2)(2) B-2, Gurudatt Building, 2Nd Floor, Vashi Income Tax Office, Vs. Navi Mumbai. Patel Chowk, Ghatkopar (East), Mumbai-400077 Pan: Aaafm7710R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay R. Singh (Ar) Revenue By : Shri V. Justin (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 07.03.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.03.2018 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. These Two Appeal By Assessee Under Section 253 Of Income Tax Act Are Directed Against The Common Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh (AR)For Respondent: Shri V. Justin (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 80I

…by the proviso, as stood during the relevant year 2004-05, it is difficult to accept the contention of revenue that claim for deduction rested on the production of completion certificate. Further, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. CHD Developers Ltd. 362 ITR 177 (Del.) held that when approval related to the project was granted prior to 2005 i.e. before amendment and the assessee was not require to produce the completion certificate to avail deduction under section 80IB. The Co-ordinate Bench of Hyderabad Tribunal in case of ITO vs. Kura Homes (P.) Ltd. [2004] 47 taxmann.com 161 held that furnishing of c…

ASST CIT CIR 2, THANE vs. SALASAR DEVELOPERS, THANE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4513/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 132Section 132(3)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A

…ong with the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s CHD Developers Ltd. (ITA No.2902 and 4694/Del./2010) order dated 26/09/2012, which was affirmed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 22/01/2014 (2014) 43 taxman.com 249(Del.); 362 ITR 177 (Del.) ; (2014) 266 CTR 360 (Del.). 2.2. We have considered the rival submissions/written submissions of the Department and perused the material available on record. We find that the case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs M/s Balalji Universal Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. in ITA NO.2183/Mum/2013 (A…

ASST CIT CIR 2, THANE vs. SALASAR DEVELOPERS, THANE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4512/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 132Section 132(3)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A

…ong with the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s CHD Developers Ltd. (ITA No.2902 and 4694/Del./2010) order dated 26/09/2012, which was affirmed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 22/01/2014 (2014) 43 taxman.com 249(Del.); 362 ITR 177 (Del.) ; (2014) 266 CTR 360 (Del.). 2.2. We have considered the rival submissions/written submissions of the Department and perused the material available on record. We find that the case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs M/s Balalji Universal Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. in ITA NO.2183/Mum/2013 (A…

ASST CIT CIR 2, THANE vs. SALASAR DEVELOPERS, THANE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4511/MUM/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 132Section 132(3)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A

…ong with the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s CHD Developers Ltd. (ITA No.2902 and 4694/Del./2010) order dated 26/09/2012, which was affirmed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 22/01/2014 (2014) 43 taxman.com 249(Del.); 362 ITR 177 (Del.) ; (2014) 266 CTR 360 (Del.). 2.2. We have considered the rival submissions/written submissions of the Department and perused the material available on record. We find that the case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs M/s Balalji Universal Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. in ITA NO.2183/Mum/2013 (A…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ANSAL HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION LTD., NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year 2006-07 is hereby allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1576/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year : 2004-05 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Acit, Central Circle-20, Ansal Housing & Construction New Delhi. Ltd., Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri S. K. Jain, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 35DSection 80I

…in nature, was not applicable for computation of deduction u/s 80IB(10). In this regard, he has placed reliance on the following decisions :- • CIT v. Sarkar Builders: 375 ITR 392 (SC) • CIT v. Veena Developers: 277 CTR 297 (SC) • CIT v. CHD Developers Ltd.: 362 ITR 177 (Del.), (assessment year involved was A Y 2007-08) • CIT v. Happy Home Enterprises & Kanakia Spaces Pvt. Ltd.: ITA No. 201 & 308/2012 (Born. HC) • CIT v. Ittina Properties (P) Ltd.: I.T.A. NOS. 556 OF 2013 (Kar,)(HC) (assessment year involved was A Y 2004-05 to 2007-08) • Bhumiraj Homes Ltd v Dy CIT: 11 ITR(Trib.) 699: (Mum) (Trib) • DCIT v. M/s…

THE ACIT.,, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ANSAL HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year 2006-07 is hereby allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1254/DEL/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year : 2004-05 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Acit, Central Circle-20, Ansal Housing & Construction New Delhi. Ltd., Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri S. K. Jain, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 35DSection 80I

…in nature, was not applicable for computation of deduction u/s 80IB(10). In this regard, he has placed reliance on the following decisions :- • CIT v. Sarkar Builders: 375 ITR 392 (SC) • CIT v. Veena Developers: 277 CTR 297 (SC) • CIT v. CHD Developers Ltd.: 362 ITR 177 (Del.), (assessment year involved was A Y 2007-08) • CIT v. Happy Home Enterprises & Kanakia Spaces Pvt. Ltd.: ITA No. 201 & 308/2012 (Born. HC) • CIT v. Ittina Properties (P) Ltd.: I.T.A. NOS. 556 OF 2013 (Kar,)(HC) (assessment year involved was A Y 2004-05 to 2007-08) • Bhumiraj Homes Ltd v Dy CIT: 11 ITR(Trib.) 699: (Mum) (Trib) • DCIT v. M/s…

ANSAL HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year 2006-07 is hereby allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1248/DEL/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year : 2004-05 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Acit, Central Circle-20, Ansal Housing & Construction New Delhi. Ltd., Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri S. K. Jain, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 35DSection 80I

…in nature, was not applicable for computation of deduction u/s 80IB(10). In this regard, he has placed reliance on the following decisions :- • CIT v. Sarkar Builders: 375 ITR 392 (SC) • CIT v. Veena Developers: 277 CTR 297 (SC) • CIT v. CHD Developers Ltd.: 362 ITR 177 (Del.), (assessment year involved was A Y 2007-08) • CIT v. Happy Home Enterprises & Kanakia Spaces Pvt. Ltd.: ITA No. 201 & 308/2012 (Born. HC) • CIT v. Ittina Properties (P) Ltd.: I.T.A. NOS. 556 OF 2013 (Kar,)(HC) (assessment year involved was A Y 2004-05 to 2007-08) • Bhumiraj Homes Ltd v Dy CIT: 11 ITR(Trib.) 699: (Mum) (Trib) • DCIT v. M/s…

ANSAL HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CC-20, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year 2006-07 is hereby allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3193/DEL/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2017AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year : 2004-05 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Acit, Central Circle-20, Ansal Housing & Construction New Delhi. Ltd., Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri S. K. Jain, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 35DSection 80I

…in nature, was not applicable for computation of deduction u/s 80IB(10). In this regard, he has placed reliance on the following decisions :- • CIT v. Sarkar Builders: 375 ITR 392 (SC) • CIT v. Veena Developers: 277 CTR 297 (SC) • CIT v. CHD Developers Ltd.: 362 ITR 177 (Del.), (assessment year involved was A Y 2007-08) • CIT v. Happy Home Enterprises & Kanakia Spaces Pvt. Ltd.: ITA No. 201 & 308/2012 (Born. HC) • CIT v. Ittina Properties (P) Ltd.: I.T.A. NOS. 556 OF 2013 (Kar,)(HC) (assessment year involved was A Y 2004-05 to 2007-08) • Bhumiraj Homes Ltd v Dy CIT: 11 ITR(Trib.) 699: (Mum) (Trib) • DCIT v. M/s…

SHRI RAMSINGH KUMAR,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

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

ITA 2196/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jan 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2194, 2195 & 2196/Mds/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Shri Ramsingh Kumar, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.7, 1St Floor, V. Income Tax, Papanasam Sivan Salai, Non-Corporate Circle – 2, Santhome, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 034. Chennai – 600 004. Pan : Afdpr4037A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 19.10.2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06.01.2017

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80I

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी चं" पूजारी, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी जी. पवन कुमार, "याियक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.: 2194, 2195 & 2196/Mds/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Shri Ramsingh Kumar, The Deputy Commissioner of No.7, 1st Floor, v. Income Tax, Papanasam Sivan Salai, Non-Corporate Circle – 2, Santhome, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 034. Chennai – 600 004. PAN : AFDPR4037A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर…

SHRI RAMSINGH KUMAR,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

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

ITA 2195/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jan 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2194, 2195 & 2196/Mds/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Shri Ramsingh Kumar, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.7, 1St Floor, V. Income Tax, Papanasam Sivan Salai, Non-Corporate Circle – 2, Santhome, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 034. Chennai – 600 004. Pan : Afdpr4037A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 19.10.2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06.01.2017

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80I

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी चं" पूजारी, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी जी. पवन कुमार, "याियक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.: 2194, 2195 & 2196/Mds/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Shri Ramsingh Kumar, The Deputy Commissioner of No.7, 1st Floor, v. Income Tax, Papanasam Sivan Salai, Non-Corporate Circle – 2, Santhome, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 034. Chennai – 600 004. PAN : AFDPR4037A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर…

SHRI RAMSINGH KUMAR,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

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

ITA 2194/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2194, 2195 & 2196/Mds/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Shri Ramsingh Kumar, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.7, 1St Floor, V. Income Tax, Papanasam Sivan Salai, Non-Corporate Circle – 2, Santhome, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 034. Chennai – 600 004. Pan : Afdpr4037A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 19.10.2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06.01.2017

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80I

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी चं" पूजारी, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी जी. पवन कुमार, "याियक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.: 2194, 2195 & 2196/Mds/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Shri Ramsingh Kumar, The Deputy Commissioner of No.7, 1st Floor, v. Income Tax, Papanasam Sivan Salai, Non-Corporate Circle – 2, Santhome, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 034. Chennai – 600 004. PAN : AFDPR4037A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर…

SAVITA BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS,THANE vs. D.C.I.T. CIRCLE-4, THANE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2882/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2882/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) M/S Savita Builders & The Deputy Commissioner बनाम/ Developers, Of Income Tax – Central V. Sakharam Baba Sankul, Circle – 4, Bolinji, Thane. Near Union Bank, Virar (W), Taluka – Vasai, Dist Thane – 401 303. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aayfs1480N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Vishwas Jadhav (D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 40ASection 80ISection 80l

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “E” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2882/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) M/s Savita Builders and The Deputy Commissioner बनाम/ Developers, of Income Tax – Central v. Sakharam Baba Sankul, Circle – 4, Bolinji, Thane. Near Union Bank, Virar (W), Taluka – Vasai, Dist Thane – 401 303. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN : AAYFS1480N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee by Shri Anil Sathe Revenue by : Shri Vishwas Jadhav (D.R.) सुन…

Showing 1–20 of 32 · Page 1 of 2