How many judgments cite CIT v. Radhe Developers?

108 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Radhe Developers (341 ITR 403), spanning 2015 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Radhe Developers come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 132, Section 153C, Section 131, Section 132(4), Section 132(4A).

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 132 Section 153C Section 131 Section 132(4)Section 132(4A)Section 254 Section 69

Issues it is cited on

section 80ia(13)section 80ia(4)(i)section 80iab section 8o section 80ib(10)section 80ia(4)deduction under section 80ia infrastructure facility deduction u/s 80ia section 80i section 80ib section 80ia

Judgments citing CIT v. Radhe Developers

ITO 20(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Abode Builders, Mumbai

In the result, both appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

ITA 841/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Santanu Kumar Saikia

Section 143(3)Section 801B(10)Section 80ISection 80l

…st issue regarding the ownership of the land being a primary pre-requisite for the allowability of claim of deduction u/s.80IB(10) of the Act, this controversy is settled by the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of CIT vs. Radhe Developers (2012) 341 ITR 403 (Guj) in favour of assessee. Following the same, this objection of Assessing Officer is not justified. We hold so. 4.6 Regarding the second aspect, of whether assessee was at all engaged in the project as a developer, we find that involvement of assessee through its partner Mr. Laiq Ahmed ITA Nos. 2890/Mum/13 & 841/Mum/14 & A.Ys. 07-08 & 10-11…

ACIT -20 (1), Mumbai vs. Abode Builders, Mumbai

In the result, both appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2890/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Santanu Kumar Saikia

Section 143(3)Section 801B(10)Section 80ISection 80l

M/S Parnika Commercial & Estates (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5724/DEL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri C.M. Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Ashish Chandra Mohanty, Sr. DR

Section 250(6)Section 80Section 80I

…xpression did not include an enterprise executing a works contract. There would certainly be a demarcation between developing the facility and execution of works contract awarded by an agency engaged in developing such facility. CIT v. RADHE DEVELOPERS [2012] 341 ITR 403 (Guj) relied on. From the inception in the year 1996, deduction under sub-section (4A) of section 80-IA of the Act was available to an enterprise engaged in developing, maintaining and operating any infrastructure facility. At the very first stage, the deduction was made available to draw additional resources for fulfilling the requirements of th…

M/S Dreamcity Developers, Mumbai vs. ITO - 23(2)-2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2652/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2009-10 Dreamcity Developers, Ito -23(2)-2 A/35-36, Patil Bhuvan, C-10, 2Nd Floor, बनाम/ Nsb Road, Mulund (W), Pratyakshar Bhavan Bkc, Vs. Mumbai-400080 Bandra (E) Mumbai- (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aaffd1884L "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri R.G. Tralshawala (Ar) Shri Jitendra Kumar (Dr) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing: 09/10/2015 18/11/2015 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order: आदेश / O R D E R Per Ashwani Taneja ():

Section 143(3)Section 801Section 801BSection 801B(10)Section 80ISection 80l

…ands covered with many judgments. 5 Dreamcity Developers 4. He has drawn our attention on the paper book containing development agreement with M/s. Kalyan Development Corporation. Further, he placed reliance on following judgments: i.CIT v. Radhe Developers 341 ITR 403 (Guj) ii.CIT v. Shital Corp. 369 ITR 476 (Guj) iii.CIT v. Sahajanand Associates 367 ITR 645 (Guj) iv.ITO v. Kewal Construction 354 ITR 13 (Guj) v. ACIT v. Vijay Mallya (Mum), ITA No.2339/Mum/2008 vi. ITO vs. Bhoomi Developers (Mum) ITA No.5633/Mum/2010 vii. Shri Umeya Corp. v. ITO (Ahd), ITA No.211/Ahd/2010 5. On the other hand, Ld. DR has relie…

ACIT, Chennai vs. B.Dhanasekaran, Chennai

ITA 360/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Nov 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddy

For Appellant: Shri. A.V.Sreekanth, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: Shri.N. Devanathan, Advocate

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80I

…ion of new infrastructure facility for the purposes of section 80IA(4)(i) of the Act. 7.6 The ld. Authorised Representative for assessee also relied on the following decisions. I.T.A.Nos.620/Mds/13 :- 18 -: and 360/Mds/2015 (i) CTI vs. Radhe Developers, 341 ITR 403 (Guj) (ii) Patel Engineering Ltd. vs. DCIT, 84 TTJ 646 (Mum) (iii) ACIT vs. Bharat Udyog Ltd, 123 TTJ 689 (Mum) (iv) CIT vs ABG Heavy Industries Ltd, 322 ITR 323(Bom) (v) The order of the Tribunal in the case of Ramky Infrastructure Ltd vs. DCIT in ITA No.472/Hyd/09 dated 17.07.2013 8. We have considered the elaborate submissions made by bot…

ACIT, Chennai vs. B.Dhanasekaran, Chennai

ITA 620/CHNY/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddy

For Appellant: Shri. A.V.Sreekanth, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: Shri.N. Devanathan, Advocate

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80I

M/S Eagleton Property Holdings, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 790/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Sept 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. Abraham P. George & Shri. Vijaypal Raoi.T.A No.790/Bang/2014 (Assessment Year : 2009-10) M/S. Eagleton Property Holdings, No.4, Model House Street, Basavanagudi, Bangalore 560004 .. Appellant Pan : Aabfe9865C V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle -4(1), Bangalore .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri. V. Sridhar, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Anurag Sahay, Cit-Dr Heard On : 24.08.2015 Pronounced On : 04.09.2015 O R D E R Per Abraham P. George:

For Appellant: Shri. V. Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Anurag Sahay, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80Section 80I

…a coordinate bench decision in the case of DCIT v. Brigade Enterprises (P) Ltd [(2008) 14 DTR 037]. Vis-a-vis requirement of legal ownership over the land, Ld. AR relying on the judgments of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the cases of CIT v. Radhe Developers [341 ITR 403] and CIT v. Shree Ram Construction ITA.790/Bang/2014 Page - 5 [TA.430 of 2013, dt.10.12.2012], submitted that such ownership over the land was not an essential criteria. As per the Ld. AR, owner of the property had parted possession of the land and assessee was the person who was developing it. Owner had given a GPA which included power to sell…

Prasad and Company, Tiruppur vs. ITO, Tiruppur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1353/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jun 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 1353/Mds/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-2010)

For Appellant: T. Banusekar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. N. Madhavan, IRS, JCIT

Section 80I

…owner of the land. The ld. Authorised Representative for assessee further submitted that the I.T.A.No.1353/Mds/2014 :- 3 -: assessee is entitled for deduction u/s.80IB(10) of the Act in view of the following decisions:- (i) CIT vs. Radhe Developers (2012) 341 ITR 403 (Guj). (ii) CIT vs. Sanghvi and Doshi Enterprise (2013) 214 Taxman 463 (Mad). (iii) CIT vs. Mahalakshmi Housing 2012-TIOL -951-HC- MAD –IT. (iv) CIT vs. Ceebros Property Development (P) Ltd. (2012) 83 CCH 98 (Madras HC) (v) CIT vs. Moon Star Developers 2014 (4) TMI 1042-(Guj H.C) 6. On the other hand, the ld. Departmental Representative relied…