CIT v. Radhe Developers

341 ITR 403High Court2012#1000 most cited

What is CIT v. Radhe Developers authority for?

Ownership of land is not a prerequisite for claiming deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Income-tax Act. The focus should be on whether the assessee undertook the development and construction of the housing project.

108

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Radhe Developers · Section 80IB(10) · ownership of land · housing project · developer · construction · deduction · Gujarat High Court

Also reported as

17 Taxmann.com 156204 Taxmann 543

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 132Section 153CSection 131Section 132(4)Section 132(4A)Section 254Section 69

Issues it is cited on

section 80ia(13)section 80ia(4)(i)section 80iabsection 8osection 80ib(10)section 80ia(4)deduction under section 80iainfrastructure facilitydeduction u/s 80iasection 80isection 80ibsection 80ia

Judgments citing CIT v. Radhe Developers

Shri Ram Babu Singh, Indore vs. DCIT 1(1), Bhopal

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 328/IND/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Ram Babu Singh, Dcit-1(1) C/O Sv Agrawal & Associates, Bhopal Dadi Dham, 24, Joy Builders Colony, Vs. Near Rafael Tower, Old Palasia, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aelps9945K Assessee By S/Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.05.2024 & 03.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23 .07.2024

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…was executed in respect of the plots but the construction was done as per agreement houses for total cost of houses including land. In support of his contention he has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in case of CIT vs. Radhe Developers 341 ITR 403 as well as Page 5 of 14 ITANo.328/Ind/2023 Ram Babu Singh decision of this tribunal in case of Paras Housing Pvt. Ltd. 22 ITJ 273 Indore. 6. On the other hand Ld. DR has submitted that the A.O has disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) on three grounds viz (i) the assessee was only a contractor for construction of the houses and not a…

The ITO, Ward-3(2)(5), Ahmedabad vs. Shree Shreyanshnath Developers, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 3053/AHD/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Feb 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year :2007-08 Ito, Ward-3(2)(5) Shree Shreyansnath Developers Ahmedabad. Vs Block No.832, Binor Bungalows Ghuma Gam Tal. Daskroi, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aaxfs 3932 L

Section 250(6)Section 80Section 80I

…ether the assessee was taking entire risk and was entitled for the entire rewards in the projects as per the facts of the case. Reference in this regard was made to the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Radhe Developers Vs.CIT, 341 ITR 403 (Guj. Accordingly, in pursuance to this order of the ITAT, the matter came up back to the ld.CIT(A) who again held the assessee eligible to deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act, and against this order of the ld.CIT(A) the department has come in appeal before us. 6. During the course of arguments made before us, both the parties heavily re…

M/S. Atul Projects India P Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2) (Now Juridiction With Dc CC 2(4)), Mumbai

ITA 1940/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 153CSection 37(1)Section 43CSection 69CSection 80I

…1 I.T.A. No.1940,1876,1877, 1879 & 1880 / Mum/2023 M/s Atul Projects India Pvt Ltd IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A”,MUMBAI BEFORE MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND MS. PADMAVATHY S. (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. No.1940,1876,1877, 1879 & 1880 / Mum/2023 (Assessment year : 2014-15 to 2017-18 & 2019-20) M/s Atul Projects India Private vs DCIT-9(1)(2) (Now Jurisdiction with Limited, 5th Floor, Trade Avenue DC CC (2)(4), Mumbai Andheri East, Suren Road Chakala, Mumbai-400 093 PAN : AAGCA5921P ASSESSEE RESPONDENT Present for the Assessee Shri Naresh Jain & Akshay Jain Present for the Depa…

M/S. Atul Projects India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2), ( Now Juridiction With Dc CC-2(4), Mumbai

ITA 1880/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 153CSection 37(1)Section 43CSection 69CSection 80I

…1 I.T.A. No.1940,1876,1877, 1879 & 1880 / Mum/2023 M/s Atul Projects India Pvt Ltd IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A”,MUMBAI BEFORE MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND MS. PADMAVATHY S. (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. No.1940,1876,1877, 1879 & 1880 / Mum/2023 (Assessment year : 2014-15 to 2017-18 & 2019-20) M/s Atul Projects India Private vs DCIT-9(1)(2) (Now Jurisdiction with Limited, 5th Floor, Trade Avenue DC CC (2)(4), Mumbai Andheri East, Suren Road Chakala, Mumbai-400 093 PAN : AAGCA5921P ASSESSEE RESPONDENT Present for the Assessee Shri Naresh Jain & Akshay Jain Present for the Depa…

M/S. Atul Projects India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2), ( Now Juridiction With Dc CC-2(4), Mumbai

ITA 1879/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 153CSection 37(1)Section 43CSection 69CSection 80I

…1 I.T.A. No.1940,1876,1877, 1879 & 1880 / Mum/2023 M/s Atul Projects India Pvt Ltd IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A”,MUMBAI BEFORE MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND MS. PADMAVATHY S. (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. No.1940,1876,1877, 1879 & 1880 / Mum/2023 (Assessment year : 2014-15 to 2017-18 & 2019-20) M/s Atul Projects India Private vs DCIT-9(1)(2) (Now Jurisdiction with Limited, 5th Floor, Trade Avenue DC CC (2)(4), Mumbai Andheri East, Suren Road Chakala, Mumbai-400 093 PAN : AAGCA5921P ASSESSEE RESPONDENT Present for the Assessee Shri Naresh Jain & Akshay Jain Present for the Depa…

M/S. Atul Projects India Pvt Ltd., Mimbai vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2), ( Now Juridiction With Dc CC-2(4), Mumbai

ITA 1877/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 153CSection 37(1)Section 43CSection 69CSection 80I

…1 I.T.A. No.1940,1876,1877, 1879 & 1880 / Mum/2023 M/s Atul Projects India Pvt Ltd IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A”,MUMBAI BEFORE MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND MS. PADMAVATHY S. (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. No.1940,1876,1877, 1879 & 1880 / Mum/2023 (Assessment year : 2014-15 to 2017-18 & 2019-20) M/s Atul Projects India Private vs DCIT-9(1)(2) (Now Jurisdiction with Limited, 5th Floor, Trade Avenue DC CC (2)(4), Mumbai Andheri East, Suren Road Chakala, Mumbai-400 093 PAN : AAGCA5921P ASSESSEE RESPONDENT Present for the Assessee Shri Naresh Jain & Akshay Jain Present for the Depa…

M/S. Atul Projects India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2), ( Now Juridiction With Dc CC-2(4), Mumbai

ITA 1876/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 153CSection 37(1)Section 43CSection 69CSection 80I

…1 I.T.A. No.1940,1876,1877, 1879 & 1880 / Mum/2023 M/s Atul Projects India Pvt Ltd IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A”,MUMBAI BEFORE MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND MS. PADMAVATHY S. (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. No.1940,1876,1877, 1879 & 1880 / Mum/2023 (Assessment year : 2014-15 to 2017-18 & 2019-20) M/s Atul Projects India Private vs DCIT-9(1)(2) (Now Jurisdiction with Limited, 5th Floor, Trade Avenue DC CC (2)(4), Mumbai Andheri East, Suren Road Chakala, Mumbai-400 093 PAN : AAGCA5921P ASSESSEE RESPONDENT Present for the Assessee Shri Naresh Jain & Akshay Jain Present for the Depa…

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

…axman.com 54 (Bom) 7. Koya& Co. Construction P.Ltd. [2012] 21 taxmann.com 35 (Hyd.ITAT) 8 . GVPR Engineers Ltd. [2012] 21 taxmann.com 25 (Hyd ITAT) 9. B.T. Patil & Sons Belgaum Construction P.Ltd. [2013] 34 taxmann.com 97 (Pune ITAT)” Radhe Developers Vs.CIT, 341 ITR 403 (Guj) 10. 10. On the other hand, the Ld. DR supported the orders of the Revenue authorities. He has also filed a detailed written submissions dated 10.11.2022, which we will analyse at the appropriate stage. 11. We have heard the rival submissions made by the respective parties; we have also perused the relevant materials including the orders pa…

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

…axman.com 54 (Bom) 7. Koya& Co. Construction P.Ltd. [2012] 21 taxmann.com 35 (Hyd.ITAT) 8 . GVPR Engineers Ltd. [2012] 21 taxmann.com 25 (Hyd ITAT) 9. B.T. Patil & Sons Belgaum Construction P.Ltd. [2013] 34 taxmann.com 97 (Pune ITAT)” Radhe Developers Vs.CIT, 341 ITR 403 (Guj) 10. 10. On the other hand, the Ld. DR supported the orders of the Revenue authorities. He has also filed a detailed written submissions dated 10.11.2022, which we will analyse at the appropriate stage. 11. We have heard the rival submissions made by the respective parties; we have also perused the relevant materials including the orders pa…

M/S.Abad Builders, Cochin vs. The ACIT, Cochin

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 185/COCH/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Tinu Anto, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR
Section 80Section 80I

…d and not with respect to the genuinity of the contract or the project involved. The ld. AR relied on the following decisions with regard to the ownership of the land is not the criteria for allowance of deduction u/s. 80IB. 1. CIT v. Radhe Developers [2012] 341 ITR 403 (Guj) 2. Shobha Developers v. CIT, LTU- ITA No.339/Bang/2011 3. ITO , Baroda v. Keval Construction Baroda – ITA No.3175/Ahd/2009 6. The ld DR relied on the order of the CIT(A) 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We notice that in the case of Radhe Developers (supra) the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court has consid…

M/S Balajee Sterling Builder, Bhopal vs. The DCIT-1(1), Bhopal

In the result, both of the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 597/IND/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 80Section 801B(10)Section 80I

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Conducted through Virtual Court) ITA No.597/Ind/2016 - Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s. Balajee Sterling DCIT-1(1), Builders, Bhopal बनाम/ Bhopal Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) ITA No.692/Ind/2018 - Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s. Balajee Sterling ITO-1(1), Builders, Bhopal बनाम/ Bhopal Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) PAN: AAHFB9110B Assessee by Shri Jayesh Doshi, AR Revenue by Shri Harshit Bari, Sr.…

Akash Infra Projects Pvt.Ltd., Gandhinagar vs. The ACIT, Gnr Circle, Gandhinagar

ITA 1679/AHD/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Jun 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 80I

…n.com 54 (Bom) 7. Koya& Co. Construction P.Ltd. [2012] 21 taxmann.com 35 (Hyd.ITAT) 8 . GVPR Engineers Ltd. [2012] 21 taxmann.com 25 (Hyd ITAT) 9. B.T. Patil & Sons Belgaum Construction P.Ltd. [2013] 34 taxmann.com 97 (Pune ITAT)” 10. Radhe Developers Vs.CIT, 341 ITR 403 (Guj) 5. On the other hand, the Ld. DR supported the orders passed by the authorities below. 6. We have heard the rival submissions made by the respective parties; we have also perused the relevant materials including the orders passed by the authorities below. It appears from the record that the Ld. AO has denied deduction claimed under sectio…

Akash Infra Projects Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Gnr Circle, Gandhinagar

ITA 1577/AHD/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Jun 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 80I

…n.com 54 (Bom) 7. Koya& Co. Construction P.Ltd. [2012] 21 taxmann.com 35 (Hyd.ITAT) 8 . GVPR Engineers Ltd. [2012] 21 taxmann.com 25 (Hyd ITAT) 9. B.T. Patil & Sons Belgaum Construction P.Ltd. [2013] 34 taxmann.com 97 (Pune ITAT)” 10. Radhe Developers Vs.CIT, 341 ITR 403 (Guj) 5. On the other hand, the Ld. DR supported the orders passed by the authorities below. 6. We have heard the rival submissions made by the respective parties; we have also perused the relevant materials including the orders passed by the authorities below. It appears from the record that the Ld. AO has denied deduction claimed under sectio…

Akash Infra Projects Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Gandhinagar

ITA 770/AHD/2008[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Jun 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 80I

…n.com 54 (Bom) 7. Koya& Co. Construction P.Ltd. [2012] 21 taxmann.com 35 (Hyd.ITAT) 8 . GVPR Engineers Ltd. [2012] 21 taxmann.com 25 (Hyd ITAT) 9. B.T. Patil & Sons Belgaum Construction P.Ltd. [2013] 34 taxmann.com 97 (Pune ITAT)” 10. Radhe Developers Vs.CIT, 341 ITR 403 (Guj) 5. On the other hand, the Ld. DR supported the orders passed by the authorities below. 6. We have heard the rival submissions made by the respective parties; we have also perused the relevant materials including the orders passed by the authorities below. It appears from the record that the Ld. AO has denied deduction claimed under sectio…

Akash Infra Projects Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Gnr Circle, Gandhinagar

ITA 4002/AHD/2008[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Jun 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 80I

…n.com 54 (Bom) 7. Koya& Co. Construction P.Ltd. [2012] 21 taxmann.com 35 (Hyd.ITAT) 8 . GVPR Engineers Ltd. [2012] 21 taxmann.com 25 (Hyd ITAT) 9. B.T. Patil & Sons Belgaum Construction P.Ltd. [2013] 34 taxmann.com 97 (Pune ITAT)” 10. Radhe Developers Vs.CIT, 341 ITR 403 (Guj) 5. On the other hand, the Ld. DR supported the orders passed by the authorities below. 6. We have heard the rival submissions made by the respective parties; we have also perused the relevant materials including the orders passed by the authorities below. It appears from the record that the Ld. AO has denied deduction claimed under sectio…

Akash Infra Projects Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Gandhinagar

ITA 2826/AHD/2007[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Jun 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 80I

…n.com 54 (Bom) 7. Koya& Co. Construction P.Ltd. [2012] 21 taxmann.com 35 (Hyd.ITAT) 8 . GVPR Engineers Ltd. [2012] 21 taxmann.com 25 (Hyd ITAT) 9. B.T. Patil & Sons Belgaum Construction P.Ltd. [2013] 34 taxmann.com 97 (Pune ITAT)” 10. Radhe Developers Vs.CIT, 341 ITR 403 (Guj) 5. On the other hand, the Ld. DR supported the orders passed by the authorities below. 6. We have heard the rival submissions made by the respective parties; we have also perused the relevant materials including the orders passed by the authorities below. It appears from the record that the Ld. AO has denied deduction claimed under sectio…

M/S. Rajkamal Builders Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result this ground of appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2202/AHD/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri (Dr.) Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR and Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80I

…man.com 54 (Bom) 7. Koya& Co. Construction P.Ltd. [2012] 21 taxmann.com 35 (Hyd.ITAT) 8 . GVPR Engineers Ltd. [2012] 21 taxmann.com 25 (Hyd ITAT) 9. B.T. Patil & Sons Belgaum Construction P.Ltd. [2013] 34 taxmann.com 97 (Pune ITAT)” Radhe Developers Vs.CIT, 341 ITR 403 (Guj) 10. 8. On the other hand, the Ld. DR supported the orders of the Revenue authorities. He has also filed a detailed written submissions dated 27.4.2022, which we will analyse the appropriate stage. ITA.No.441/Ahd/2011 and 20 Others Rajkamal Builders Infrastructure P.Ltd. 9 9. We have heard the rival submissions made by the respective partie…

M/S. Rajkamal Builders Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result this ground of appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2201/AHD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri (Dr.) Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR and Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80I

…man.com 54 (Bom) 7. Koya& Co. Construction P.Ltd. [2012] 21 taxmann.com 35 (Hyd.ITAT) 8 . GVPR Engineers Ltd. [2012] 21 taxmann.com 25 (Hyd ITAT) 9. B.T. Patil & Sons Belgaum Construction P.Ltd. [2013] 34 taxmann.com 97 (Pune ITAT)” Radhe Developers Vs.CIT, 341 ITR 403 (Guj) 10. 8. On the other hand, the Ld. DR supported the orders of the Revenue authorities. He has also filed a detailed written submissions dated 27.4.2022, which we will analyse the appropriate stage. ITA.No.441/Ahd/2011 and 20 Others Rajkamal Builders Infrastructure P.Ltd. 9 9. We have heard the rival submissions made by the respective partie…

M/S. Rajkamal Builders Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result this ground of appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1499/AHD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri (Dr.) Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR and Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80I

…man.com 54 (Bom) 7. Koya& Co. Construction P.Ltd. [2012] 21 taxmann.com 35 (Hyd.ITAT) 8 . GVPR Engineers Ltd. [2012] 21 taxmann.com 25 (Hyd ITAT) 9. B.T. Patil & Sons Belgaum Construction P.Ltd. [2013] 34 taxmann.com 97 (Pune ITAT)” Radhe Developers Vs.CIT, 341 ITR 403 (Guj) 10. 8. On the other hand, the Ld. DR supported the orders of the Revenue authorities. He has also filed a detailed written submissions dated 27.4.2022, which we will analyse the appropriate stage. ITA.No.441/Ahd/2011 and 20 Others Rajkamal Builders Infrastructure P.Ltd. 9 9. We have heard the rival submissions made by the respective partie…

M/S. Rajkamal Builders Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT., Circle-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result this ground of appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2917/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri (Dr.) Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR and Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80I

…man.com 54 (Bom) 7. Koya& Co. Construction P.Ltd. [2012] 21 taxmann.com 35 (Hyd.ITAT) 8 . GVPR Engineers Ltd. [2012] 21 taxmann.com 25 (Hyd ITAT) 9. B.T. Patil & Sons Belgaum Construction P.Ltd. [2013] 34 taxmann.com 97 (Pune ITAT)” Radhe Developers Vs.CIT, 341 ITR 403 (Guj) 10. 8. On the other hand, the Ld. DR supported the orders of the Revenue authorities. He has also filed a detailed written submissions dated 27.4.2022, which we will analyse the appropriate stage. ITA.No.441/Ahd/2011 and 20 Others Rajkamal Builders Infrastructure P.Ltd. 9 9. We have heard the rival submissions made by the respective partie…