How many judgments cite CIT v. Sarkar Builders?

75 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Sarkar Builders (375 ITR 392), spanning 2015 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Sarkar Builders come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 115BBE, Section 68, Section 69A, Section 80IB(10), Section 133A, Section 142(1).

CIT v. Sarkar Builders

375 ITR 392Supreme Court of India2015#1523 most cited

What is CIT v. Sarkar Builders authority for?

An assessee should not be prejudiced by differences in accounting treatment if accounting principles are duly followed and the issue is revenue neutral, as hypothetical income cannot be subjected to tax.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Sarkar Builders · Sarkar Builders Supreme Court · accounting treatment · revenue neutral · hypothetical income · prejudice to assessee · income tax assessment · section 29 · section 80IB(10) · accounting principles · differences in accounting

Also reported as

277 CTR 2977 SCC 57957 Taxmann.com 313

Sections most often in play

Section 115BBE Section 68 Section 69A Section 80IB(10)Section 133A Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144

Issues it is cited on

section 2(9)section 155bbe section 115bbe(1)section 80ib(10)section 155 section 80ib advance tax section 80i section 115bb section 29 section 115b agricultural income

Judgments citing CIT v. Sarkar Builders

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR 1(3)(1), INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT vs. SKATE TRADES AND AGENCIES PRIVATE LIMITED , RAICHUR STREET MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1663/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhaildy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(3)(1), Room No.535, Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. Road, Churchgate ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400020

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj, Sr.DR

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

…1 SCC 1. The learned Counsel would also place before us a number of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kesoram Industries v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax, [AIR 1966 SC 1385], Guffic Chem P. Ltd v. C.I.T [2011(4) SCC 245], C.I.T v. Sarkar Builders [(2015) 375 ITR 392 (SC)], Shiv Raj Gupta v. C.I.T [(2020) 425 ITR 420 (SC)] and State of Kerala v. Alex George [(2004) 271 ITR 290(SC), to further buttress his arguments. Reliance is Chandan Garments P. Ltd. ITANo.125/Ind/2022 Assessment Year 2017-18 Page 12 of 16 also placed on the Full Bench decision of the Patna High Court in Loknath Goenka v. C.I.T [2019 417 IT…

SPECTRA EQUIPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1),, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 500/HYD/2023[Assessment Year 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Dec 2024

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaassessment Year: 2017-18 Spectra Equipment Private Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Limited, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan No.Aaccs8677C. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Akanksha, C.A. For Shri Sunil Kumar Jain, C.A. Revenue By: Ms. Narmada, Cit-Dr For Shri Madan Mohan Meena, Sr.D.R. Date Of Hearing: 11.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.12.2024

For Appellant: Ms. Akanksha, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Narmada, CIT-DR for Shri Madan Mohan Meena

Section 115BSection 131Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

…1 SCC 1. The learned Counsel would also place before us a number of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kesoram Industries v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax, [AIR 1966 SC 1385], Guffic Chem P. Ltd v. C.I.T [2011(4) SCC 245], C.I.T v. Sarkar Builders [(2015) 375 ITR 392 (SC)], Shiv Raj Gupta v. C.I.T [(2020) 425 ITR 420(SC)] and State of Kerala v. Alex George [(2004) 271 ITR 290(SC), to further buttress his arguments. Reliance is Chandan Garments P. Ltd. ITANo.125/Ind/2022 Assessment Year 2017-18 Page 12 of 16 also placed on the Full Bench decision of the Patna High Court in Loknath Goenka v. C.I.T [2019 417 ITR…

MOHAN LAL ASHOK KUMAR SARAF,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 879/JPR/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Nov 2024AY 2017-2018

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Totuka, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 68

…1 SCC 1. The learned Counsel would also place before us a number of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kesoram Industries v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax. (AIR 1966 SC 1385], Guffic Chem P. Ltd V. C.I.T (2011(4) SCC 245], C.IT v. Sarkar Builders [(2015) 375 ITR 392 (SC)], Shiv Raj Gupta v. C.LT [(2020) 425 ITR 420(SC)) and State of Kerala v. Alex George [(2004) 271 ITR 290(SC), to further buttress his arguments. Reliance is also placed on the Full Bench decision of the Patna High Court in Loknath Goenka v. C.1. T[2019 417 ITR 521(Patna)] ……. ……. 12. The assessee contends that the seizures were made prior to…

THE ACIT, -2(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION, BHOPAL

The appeal of the assesse is disposed off in terms of

ITA 159/IND/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shrib.M. Biyani

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80Section 801B(10)Section 80I

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, इंदौर न्यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRIB.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.59/Ind/2015, 159/Ind/2015 & 436/Ind/2015 Assessment Years: 2009-10 to 2011-12 ACIT 2(1), Bhopal M/s D.K. Construction, E-2/21, (Revenue) Vs. Pandit Dindayal Complex, Arera Colony, Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) PAN: AAAFD7121P Assessee by Shri S.S. Deshpande, AR Revenue by Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 25.09.2024 Date of Pronouncement 17.10.2024 आदेश/ORDER Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: These three appeals are filed by re…

M/S SAHARA STATES,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 22/IND/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Sept 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani&

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

…n for allowing deduction in respect of the project which was approved and commenced prior to 01.04.2005. 5.1 In support of his contention he has relied upon series of decisions including the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Sarkar Builders 375 ITR 392 as well as judgment in case of CIT vs. Veena Developers 277 CTR 297. Ld. AR has also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Bramha Associates 333 ITR 289. Thus he has asserted that the amendments in section 80IB(10) w.e.f 01.04.2005 are prospective and not retrospective and hence cannot be applied for prior perio…

M/S SAHARA STATES,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 271/IND/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Sept 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani&

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

PRAGATI POWER CORPORATION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 20(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 1617/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 145(2)Section 32Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 43ASection 46ASection 80I

…huge financial implications. v) In any case, the treatment on account of bad debts u/s 36(1)(viia) is also based on the accounting treatment and the same would have yielded into same results. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Sarkar Builders (2015) 375 ITR 392 (SC) have held that the assessee should not be prejudiced by differences in accounting treatment adopted by him. H) When all the accounting principles laid down under the Income Tax Act and the accounting standards have been duly followed by the assessee and that the impugned issue is revenue neutral in nature, then a hypothetical income cannot b…

LATE MANOHARASINGH THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SHRI SURAJ MANDLOI,INDORE vs. ITO 1(1), INDORE

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 110/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2017-18 Late Manoharasingh Income-Tax Officer, (Through Legal Heir Shri 1(1), Suraj Mandloi), Indore. बनाम/ 34, Village Begam Kheri, Vs. P.O.Burana Kheri, Indore. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan : Blspm9380B Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.07.2024

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

…1 SCC 1. The learned Counsel would also place before us a number of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kesoram Industries v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax, [AIR 1966 SC 1385], Guffic Chem P. Ltd v. C.I.T [2011(4) SCC 245], C.I.T v. Sarkar Builders [(2015) 375 ITR 392 (SC)], Shiv Raj Gupta v. C.I.T [(2020) 425 ITR 420(SC)] and State of Kerala v. Alex George [(2004) 271 ITR 290(SC), to further buttress his arguments. Reliance is also placed on the Full Bench decision of the Patna High Court in Loknath Goenka v. C.I.T [2019 417 ITR 521(Patna)]. 11. Before we look at the amendments carried out, on facts, there w…

SMT. RAJNI GUTPA,ALWAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR, ALWAR

ITA 45/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT

Section 115BSection 132Section 139Section 153ASection 68

…15) 1 SCC 1. The learned Counsel would also place before us a number of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kesoram Industries v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax, (AIR 1966 SC 1385), Guffic Chem P. Ltd v. C.LT (2011(4) SCC 245), CIT u. Sarkar Builders (2015) 375 ITR 392 (SC)), Shiv Raj Gupta v. C.1.T (2020) 425 ITR 420(SC)) and State of Kerala v. Alex George (2004) 271 ITR 290(SC), to further buttress his arguments. Reliance is also placed on the Full Bench decision of the Patna High Court in Loknath Goenka v. C.LT 2019 417 ITR 521(Patna)). 12. The assessee contends that the seizures were made prior to the amend…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs. SHRI RAKESH SARAOGI, RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 98/RPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 98/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Shri Rakesh Saraogi Prop. M/S. Madan Construction, Subhash Road, Gunj Para, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Ajjps3803P ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

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

…sidential flat of his housing project to an individual. The Ld. AR, in support of his aforesaid claim, relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Shreenath Buildcon (2019) 267 taxman. 115 (SC) and CIT Vs. Sarkar Builders (2015) 7 SCC 579. Also, support was drawn by the Ld. AR from the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in the case of M/s. Kuber Developers, Tax Case No.106-107, 112 of 2017, dated 06.11.2017, and that of the order of ITAT, Raipur, in the case of ACIT-1(1) Vs. M/s. Kuber Developers, ITA No.256/RPR/2017 dated 29.08.2022. 8. Apropos the declining of the…

MR GAURAV AJMERA,RATLAM vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, INDORE

Accordingly. Thus, this ground is allowed partly for statistical purpose

ITA 71/IND/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore01 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Mr. Gaurav Ajmera, Dcit, बनाम/ 38, Ram Mohalla, Central Circle 2, Ratlam Indore. Vs. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aglpa8863C Assessee By Shri Pawan Ved, Advocate & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 01.09.2023

Section 115BSection 131Section 132(4)Section 132ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234ASection 271A

…1 SCC 1. The learned Counsel would also place before us a number of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kesoram Industries v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax, [AIR 1966 SC 1385], Guffic Chem P. Ltd v. C.I.T [2011(4) SCC 245], C.I.T v. Sarkar Builders [(2015) 375 ITR 392 (SC)], Shiv Raj Gupta v. C.I.T [(2020) 425 ITR 420(SC)] and State of Kerala v. Alex George [(2004) 271 ITR 290(SC), to further buttress his arguments. Reliance is also placed on the Full Bench decision of the Patna High Court in Loknath Goenka v. C.I.T [2019 417 ITR 521(Patna)]. 11. Before we look at the amendments carried out, on facts, there w…

SMT. RITU SINGH,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6504/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Hiren Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Princy Singla, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 68

…), the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that what applies is the law of the assessment year for the income of the previous year. This principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been reiterated by the Apex Court in CIT vs. Sarkar Builders (2015) 375 ITR 392 (SC). 21. We, therefore, hold that the Ld. CIT(A) misdirected himself in forming his view that the amendment brought by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014 in sub-section (1) of section 54 w.e.f. 1st April, 2015 is retrospective being clarificatory in nature and that the amendment restricts the benefit of exemption under section 54 to purchase of one…

NARENDRA KUMAR SHATILAL JAIN HUF,INDORE vs. PCIT-1, INDORE

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 124/IND/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Narendra Kumar Shantilal Jain Pr. Cit -1 Huf Indore Prop. M/S Chandan Garments Khutal Mohite Complex, 2Nd Floor, 27/36, बनाम/Vs. Subhash Chowk, Rajwada Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aachn 5568 E Assessee By Shri Prakash Jain & Ms. Shreya Jain, Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 13.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2022 आदेश / / O R D E R / /

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 69A

…1 SCC 1. The learned Counsel would also place before us a number of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kesoram Industries v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax, [AIR 1966 SC 1385], Guffic Chem P. Ltd v. C.I.T [2011(4) SCC 245], C.I.T v. Sarkar Builders [(2015) 375 ITR 392 (SC)], Shiv Raj Gupta v. C.I.T [(2020) 425 ITR 420(SC)] and State of Kerala v. Alex George [(2004) 271 ITR 290(SC), to further buttress his arguments. Reliance is also placed on the Full Bench decision of the Patna High Court in Loknath Goenka v. C.I.T [2019 417 ITR 521(Patna)]. 11. Before we look at the amendments carried out, on facts, there we…

CHANDAN GARMENTS P LTD ,INDORE vs. THE PCIT-1, INDORE

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 125/IND/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore02 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Chandan Garments Private Pr. Cit -1 Ltd. Indore बनाम 27-36, Khutal Complex, Subhash Chowk, Rajwada, /Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaecc 3248 H Assessee By Shri Prakash Jain & Ms. Shreya Jain, Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 14.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 02.12.2022 आदेश / / / O R D E R /

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 69Section 69A

…1 SCC 1. The learned Counsel would also place before us a number of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kesoram Industries v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax, [AIR 1966 SC 1385], Guffic Chem P. Ltd v. C.I.T [2011(4) SCC 245], C.I.T v. Sarkar Builders [(2015) 375 ITR 392 (SC)], Shiv Raj Gupta v. C.I.T [(2020) 425 ITR 420(SC)] and State of Kerala v. Alex George [(2004) 271 ITR 290(SC), to further buttress his arguments. Reliance is Page 11 of 16 Chandan Garments P. Ltd. ITANo.125/Ind/2022 Assessment Year 2017-18 also placed on the Full Bench decision of the Patna High Court in Loknath Goenka v. C.I.T [2019 417 I…

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…

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S MACRO MARVEL PROJECTS LTD, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 194/CHNY/2008[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jun 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 80I

…ction80IB(10) of the Act and assessee has complied with all the provisions of the Act and as noted by Hon’ble Madras High Court, this issue is now covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Sarkar Builders 375 ITR 392 and Hon’ble High Court has considered this aspect while hearing the arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee in para 9 which reads as under: “9. When these appeals are taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the questions of law raised in these appeals were already decided in favour of the appellant b…

M/S MACRO MARVEL PROJECTS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, COMPANY WARD-IV(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2259/CHNY/2007[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jun 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 80I

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIT(A) vs. M/S KARAVALI HOUSING

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

ITA/123/2016HC Karnataka04 Oct 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 260Section 260ASection 80I

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V. HOSMANI I.T.A. NO.123/2016 BETWEEN: 1. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIT(A) C.R.BUILDING, ATTAVARA MANGALURU-575 001. 2. THE ASST. COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-2(1), C.R.BUILDING BANGALORE-560 001. …APPELLANTS [BY SRI. E.I. SANMATHI, ADVOCATE A/W SRI. K.V.ARAVIND, ADVOCATE (PHYSICAL HEARING)] AND: M/s. KARAVALI HOUSING NO.9, CITY POINT, KODIALBAIL MANGALURU-575 001. PAN: AA…

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

…) Act, 2004 w.e.f. 01.04.2005 is applicable for projects approved after 01.04.2005 and not to those projects which are approved on or before 01.04.2005. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Sarkar Builders, reported in 375 ITR 392 and in the case of CIT vs. Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd., reported in 367 ITR 466, he submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in these decisions has held that the conditions prescribed u/s 80IB(10)(d) cannot be applied to projects approved prior to 01.04.2005. Therefore, the allegation of the AO that the assessee does not fulfill the condition of bu…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. HOSAGRAHAR

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA/601/2019HC Karnataka05 Mar 2021

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 54F

…I.T.A. NO.601 OF 2019 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ I.T.A. NO.601 OF 2019 BETWEEN: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 4TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU-560095 2. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, WARD-1(1) 4TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU-560095 ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADVOCATE-PH) AND: SHRI. HOSAGRAHAR VISVESVARAYA JAG…

Showing 1–20 of 75 · Page 1 of 4