CIT v. Subba Reddy (HUF)

373 ITR 103Reported decision2015#24862 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2017.

Judgments citing CIT v. Subba Reddy (HUF)

AGNI ESTATES AND FOUNDATION PVT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1058/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Sh. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Asish Tripathy, JCIT
Section 154Section 80

…icer included portico area and common area for computing the built-up area. According to the Ld. counsel, common area cannot form part of built-up area. The Ld.counsel placed his reliance on the judgment of Madras High Court in CIT v Subba Reddy (HUF) (2015) 373 ITR 103. 4. On the contrary, Shri Asish Tripathy, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the assessee undertook three projects. In respect of Selaiyur and Pallikaranai projects, the CIT(Appeals) allowed the claim of the assessee under Section 80- IB(10) of the Act. However, in respect of Porur project, according to the Ld. D.R., the CIT(Appe…

AGNI ESTATES AND FOUNDATION PVT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1057/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Sh. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Asish Tripathy, JCIT
Section 154Section 80

…icer included portico area and common area for computing the built-up area. According to the Ld. counsel, common area cannot form part of built-up area. The Ld.counsel placed his reliance on the judgment of Madras High Court in CIT v Subba Reddy (HUF) (2015) 373 ITR 103. 4. On the contrary, Shri Asish Tripathy, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the assessee undertook three projects. In respect of Selaiyur and Pallikaranai projects, the CIT(Appeals) allowed the claim of the assessee under Section 80- IB(10) of the Act. However, in respect of Porur project, according to the Ld. D.R., the CIT(Appe…

AGNI ESTATES AND FOUNDATION PVT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1056/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Sh. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Asish Tripathy, JCIT
Section 154Section 80

…icer included portico area and common area for computing the built-up area. According to the Ld. counsel, common area cannot form part of built-up area. The Ld.counsel placed his reliance on the judgment of Madras High Court in CIT v Subba Reddy (HUF) (2015) 373 ITR 103. 4. On the contrary, Shri Asish Tripathy, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the assessee undertook three projects. In respect of Selaiyur and Pallikaranai projects, the CIT(Appeals) allowed the claim of the assessee under Section 80- IB(10) of the Act. However, in respect of Porur project, according to the Ld. D.R., the CIT(Appe…

CIT v. Subba Reddy (HUF) (373 ITR 103) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax