CIT v. Vandana Properties

353 ITR 36High Court2013#1292 most cited

What is CIT v. Vandana Properties authority for?

The Bombay High Court holds that for deduction under Section 80IB(10), the minimum plot area of one acre refers to the aggregate area of the land on which housing projects are developed, not necessarily to each individual project if multiple projects are undertaken on a larger single plot. This means the deduction is allowable even if a sub-block within the overall project is less than one acre, provided the total plot size meets the minimum.

88

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. Vandana Properties · Section 80IB(10) · Section 80IB(10)(b) · housing project deduction · minimum plot area · multiple projects on single plot · aggregate plot size · eligibility for deduction · Bombay High Court · tax deduction housing project · builder deduction 80IB(10) · plot size one acre

Also reported as

206 Taxmann 58419 Taxmann.com 316

Sections most often in play

Section 80IBSection 80IB(1)Section 80IB(10)Section 10(23G)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80-IB(10)Section 80IB(10)(b)

Issues it is cited on

section 80ib(10)section 80ibsection 80ichildsection 80previous yearprescribedbusinesspersontotal incomesection 143(3)company

Judgments citing CIT v. Vandana Properties

AVINASH S SADAMATE, ACIT, CIRCLE 3 3 1 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RASHMI INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the Revenue's appeal and Cross\nObjection are dismissed

ITA 6605/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: \nShri Madhur Agrawal / Jay Bhansali, ARsFor Respondent: \nShri Uma Shankar Prasad, (CIT DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 801B(10)Section 801B(10)(c)

…{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI\nBEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER\n&\nSHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nITA No.6605/MUM/2024\n(A.Y. 2013-14)\nAssistant Commissioner of v/s. Rashmi Infrastructure\nIncome Tax, Circle 3(3)(1), बनाम Developers Limited 10th\nRoom No. 522, Aayakar Floor, Regent Chambers,\nBhavan, M.K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai\nChurchgate, Mumbai 400 400 021, Maharashtra\n020, Maharashtra\nस्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AACCR2499B\nAppellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी\nप्रत्याक्षेपसं./C.O. No.15/MUM/2025\n(Arising out of ITA No.…

ACIT, KOCHI vs. M/S SKYLINE BUILDERS, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 942/COCH/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.Sundarasan S, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Sri.P.M.Veeramani, CA
Section 801B(10)Section 80I

…lot of land extending 221.498 cents and this conditions laid down in 801B(10) is satisfied and appellant is eligible for deduction." In support of its contention, the appellant has relied upon the following judicial pronouncements:- CIT Vs Vandana Properties [353 ITR 36 Bombay] CIT Vs. Voora property Developers Private Limited [373 ITR 317 Mad] 4.5 With regard to the above, it needs to be stated that the appellant has developed two projects on a plot of land extending 221.498 cents (2.2 acres). The provisions of section 801B(10) sub- section (b) which specifies the minimum area required for the project states tha…

ACIT, ERNAKULAM vs. M/S SKYLINE BUILDERS, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 928/COCH/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.Sundarasan S, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Sri.P.M.Veeramani, CA
Section 801B(10)Section 80I

…lot of land extending 221.498 cents and this conditions laid down in 801B(10) is satisfied and appellant is eligible for deduction." In support of its contention, the appellant has relied upon the following judicial pronouncements:- CIT Vs Vandana Properties [353 ITR 36 Bombay] CIT Vs. Voora property Developers Private Limited [373 ITR 317 Mad] 4.5 With regard to the above, it needs to be stated that the appellant has developed two projects on a plot of land extending 221.498 cents (2.2 acres). The provisions of section 801B(10) sub- section (b) which specifies the minimum area required for the project states tha…

ACIT, ERNAKULAM vs. M/S SKYLINE BUILDERS, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 927/COCH/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.Sundarasan S, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Sri.P.M.Veeramani, CA
Section 801B(10)Section 80I

…lot of land extending 221.498 cents and this conditions laid down in 801B(10) is satisfied and appellant is eligible for deduction." In support of its contention, the appellant has relied upon the following judicial pronouncements:- CIT Vs Vandana Properties [353 ITR 36 Bombay] CIT Vs. Voora property Developers Private Limited [373 ITR 317 Mad] 4.5 With regard to the above, it needs to be stated that the appellant has developed two projects on a plot of land extending 221.498 cents (2.2 acres). The provisions of section 801B(10) sub- section (b) which specifies the minimum area required for the project states tha…

VANDANA PROPERTIES,MUMBAI vs. CIT(A) FACELESS, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3138/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Kavitha Rajgopal & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S. Vandana Properties, B 602, Prem Nagar No. 6, Mcf Udyan Marg, Borivali West, Mumbai – 400 092 Pan: Aaafv3003E ..... Appellant Vs. Cit (A) /Nfac Delhi Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Mumbai- 400 051 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sameer Dalal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80Section 801B(10)Section 80I

…acre. The submission of the assessee that its claim of deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Act for A.Y 2004-05 and A.Y 2005-06 was accepted by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay vide its order passed in the case of CIT-25, Vs. M/s. Vandana Properties (2012) 353 ITR 36, (Bom), also did not find favour with the A.O, for the reason that the said decision of the Hon’ble High Court was not accepted by the department and a Special Leave Petition (for short “SLP”) against the same was filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The A.O on the basis of his aforesaid observations disallowed the claim of deduction raised by…

SHRI ABHAY DARE,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 832/IND/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Abhay Dare Ito-1(1) R-18, Gtb Complex Bhopal New Market, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Adqpd5119C Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2024

Section 801BSection 801B(10)Section 80I

…is no issue for claiming section 80IB (10). Your attention is also drawn to various cases including 1. CIT v/s Vishal Developers Tax Appeal no. 507/2014 (Ahmeshabad hah Court) Page 8 of 15 ITANo.832/Ind/2016 Abhay Dare 2. CIT v/s Vandana Properties (2012) 19 Taxmann.com 316 (Bombay) 3. CIT v/s Sanghvee&Doshi Enterprises (2013) 29 Tахтани.com 388 (Madras)” 4. On the other hand, Ld. DR has submitted that the assessee has not disputed the fact that he has executed sale deed for sale of land to the buyers and thereafter constructed the houses on these plots of land owned by the buyers and not by the assessee. The…

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. M/S. LIFE STYLE INFRATECH PVT. LTD., INDORE

ITA 291/IND/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर"यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Through Virtual Hearing) IT(SS)A Nos.27, 28, 29 and ITA No. 291/Ind/2016 Assessment Years: 2010-11 to 2013-14 A.C.I.T., M/s. Lifestyle Infratech Central-2, Pvt. Ltd., बनाम/ Indore Patwari Halka No.17, Near DPS School, Vs. Nipania, Indore (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) PAN: AAJCS8613H Assessee by Shri Prakash Jain and Shreya Jain, C.A.& Ars Revenue by Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT DR Date of Hearing 14.03.2023 Date…

DCIT CENTRAL-CIRCLE-2(4), MUMBAI vs. KEYSTONE REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1946/MUM/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

…d Act being procedural can be given retroactive effect and she relies upon the explanatory note of the Finance (2) Act, 2009 by which such provision was introduced in the said Act. She relies on the decisions of this Court in CIT v. Vandana Properties- (2013) 353 ITR 36 (BOM), Bramha Associates (supra) and Britannia Industries Ltd. v. CIT- (2005) 148 TaxMan.Com 468 SC in support of her contentions. 11. The rival contentions now fall for our determination. 12. The reasoning of the ITAT that the exclusion of the 5 residential units from out of the 352 residential units in the entire housing project might affect t…

KEYSTONE REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3003/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

…d Act being procedural can be given retroactive effect and she relies upon the explanatory note of the Finance (2) Act, 2009 by which such provision was introduced in the said Act. She relies on the decisions of this Court in CIT v. Vandana Properties- (2013) 353 ITR 36 (BOM), Bramha Associates (supra) and Britannia Industries Ltd. v. CIT- (2005) 148 TaxMan.Com 468 SC in support of her contentions. 11. The rival contentions now fall for our determination. 12. The reasoning of the ITAT that the exclusion of the 5 residential units from out of the 352 residential units in the entire housing project might affect t…

JT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) - CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S KEYSTONE REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2822/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

…d Act being procedural can be given retroactive effect and she relies upon the explanatory note of the Finance (2) Act, 2009 by which such provision was introduced in the said Act. She relies on the decisions of this Court in CIT v. Vandana Properties- (2013) 353 ITR 36 (BOM), Bramha Associates (supra) and Britannia Industries Ltd. v. CIT- (2005) 148 TaxMan.Com 468 SC in support of her contentions. 11. The rival contentions now fall for our determination. 12. The reasoning of the ITAT that the exclusion of the 5 residential units from out of the 352 residential units in the entire housing project might affect t…

DCIT CEN CIR 10, MUMBAI vs. KEYSTONE REALTORS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5631/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

…d Act being procedural can be given retroactive effect and she relies upon the explanatory note of the Finance (2) Act, 2009 by which such provision was introduced in the said Act. She relies on the decisions of this Court in CIT v. Vandana Properties- (2013) 353 ITR 36 (BOM), Bramha Associates (supra) and Britannia Industries Ltd. v. CIT- (2005) 148 TaxMan.Com 468 SC in support of her contentions. 11. The rival contentions now fall for our determination. 12. The reasoning of the ITAT that the exclusion of the 5 residential units from out of the 352 residential units in the entire housing project might affect t…

SHIRISH M DALVI,KALYAN vs. DCIT CIR 29(3), MUMBAI

Accordingly, we uphold the finding of Ld CIT(A). The ground No. four of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly dismissed

ITA 4640/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shirish M. Dalvi, Dcit Circle-23(3), D’ Block, 1St Floor, Zojwala 3Rd Floor, C-10, Pratyaksha Vs. Complex, Sahajanand Kar Bhavan, Bandra East, Chowk, Kalyan-421 301. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadpd 0358 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit Circle-23(3), Shirish M. Dalvi, Room No. 402, 4Th Floor, C-10 D’ Block, 1St Floor, Zojwala Vs. Bldg., Pratyakshakar Complex, Sahajanand Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Chowk, Kalyan-421 301. Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadpd 0358 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shirish M. Dalvi, Dcit-29(3), D’ Block, 1St Floor, Zojwala Room No. 402, 4Th Floor, C- Vs. Complex, Sahajanand 10, Pratyaksha Kar Chowk, Kalyan-421 301. Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra, Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadpd 0358 H

…n the case of ITO Vs AV Bhatt developers reported in 145 ITD 305(Pune) Shirish M. Dalvi (iii) Tribunal Mumbai bench in the case of ITO Vs Kasturi construction reported in 54 SOT 384 (iv) Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vandana properties reported in 353 ITR 36. 28.3 In respect of the second reasoning given by the assessing officer for disallowance of deduction under section 80 IB, the Ld. Counsel the assesseesubmitted that from reading of explanation to section 80IB(10), it is evident that date of approval of the building plan shall be the date of the approval of the housing project. The explanation is…

DCIT CIR 23(3), MUMBAI vs. SHIRISH M DALVI, MUMBAI

Accordingly, we uphold the finding of Ld CIT(A). The ground No. four of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly dismissed

ITA 4317/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shirish M. Dalvi, Dcit Circle-23(3), D’ Block, 1St Floor, Zojwala 3Rd Floor, C-10, Pratyaksha Vs. Complex, Sahajanand Kar Bhavan, Bandra East, Chowk, Kalyan-421 301. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadpd 0358 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit Circle-23(3), Shirish M. Dalvi, Room No. 402, 4Th Floor, C-10 D’ Block, 1St Floor, Zojwala Vs. Bldg., Pratyakshakar Complex, Sahajanand Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Chowk, Kalyan-421 301. Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadpd 0358 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shirish M. Dalvi, Dcit-29(3), D’ Block, 1St Floor, Zojwala Room No. 402, 4Th Floor, C- Vs. Complex, Sahajanand 10, Pratyaksha Kar Chowk, Kalyan-421 301. Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra, Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadpd 0358 H

…n the case of ITO Vs AV Bhatt developers reported in 145 ITD 305(Pune) Shirish M. Dalvi (iii) Tribunal Mumbai bench in the case of ITO Vs Kasturi construction reported in 54 SOT 384 (iv) Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vandana properties reported in 353 ITR 36. 28.3 In respect of the second reasoning given by the assessing officer for disallowance of deduction under section 80 IB, the Ld. Counsel the assesseesubmitted that from reading of explanation to section 80IB(10), it is evident that date of approval of the building plan shall be the date of the approval of the housing project. The explanation is…

ASST CIT 27(2), NAVI MUMBAI vs. MERIT MAGNUM CONSTRUCTION, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6657/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Sh. Paresh ShapariaFor Respondent: Sh. Mahiita Nair, CIT-DR
Section 292CSection 68Section 69CSection 801BSection 801B(10)Section 80I

…and not under challenge on factual or legal front. Same are clearly emanated from the order of AO and Ld. CIT(A). 12. We further rely on following pronouncements of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court and other High Courts/ITAT :- “CIT Vandana Properties [2013] 353 ITR 36 (Bom). Whether construction of building E constitutes a 'housing project under section 80-1B(10). The expression housing project' is neither defined under section 2 of the Act nor under section 801B(10) Even under the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act 1988 as also under the Development Control Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 1991, the expression ho…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 8, PUNE vs. ASWANI DEVELOPERS, PUNE

ITA 576/PUN/2020[201213]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Sept 2022

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr.Dipak P.Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.576/Pun/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Aswani Developers, Income Tax, Circle-8, Pune Vs Second Floor, S.P. Heights, Mumbai-Pune Road, Kasarwadi, Pune 411 034 Pan : Aarfa0761H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकरअपीलसं. / It(Ss)A Nos.02 & 03/Pun/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Aswani Developers, Income Tax, Vs Second Floor, S.P. Heights, Central Circle-2(2), Pune Mumbai-Pune Road, Kasarwadi, Pune 411 034 Pan : Aarfa0761H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80I

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ए” "ायपीठ पुणे म" । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR.DIPAK P.RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं. / ITA No.576/PUN/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner of M/s. Aswani Developers, Income Tax, Circle-8, Pune Vs Second Floor, S.P. Heights, Mumbai-Pune Road, Kasarwadi, Pune 411 034 PAN : AARFA0761H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकरअपीलसं. / IT(SS)A Nos.02 & 03/PUN/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner of M/s. Aswani Developers, Income Tax, Vs Second…

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 12(1),, PUNE vs. M/S. YASH ASSOCIATES,, PUNE

ITA 159/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.159/Pun/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Income Tax Officer, M/S.Yash Associates, 401, 4Th Floor, Shreepal Ward-12(1), Pune. Vs . Chambers, 481/C, Shanivar Peth, Pune – 411030. Pan: Aaafy 6149 E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Cross Objection No.01/Pun/2022 (Arising Out Of Ita No.159/Pun/2018) िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Income Tax Officer, M/S.Yash Associates, 401, 4Th Floor, Shreepal Ward-12(1), Pune. Vs. Chambers, 481/C, Shanivar Peth, Pune – 411030. Pan: Aaafy 6149 E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Rajiv Thakkar – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 11/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 05/08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Revenue’S Appeal Ita No.159/Pun/218 With Assessee’S Cross Objection Co No.01/Pun/2022 For The A.Y. 2014-15, Arise Against The Cit(A)-8, Pune’S Order Dated 17.10.2017 Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-8/Acit Cir-12/293/2017-18/284, In Proceedings Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Heard Both The Parties. Case Files Perused.

Section 143(3)Section 80I

…the plot is one only, for which M/s Ravi Promoter had got the Commencement Certificate in the year 2004 and subsequent sanctions were only revisions on the basis of first approval. The AO distinguished the facts of the case of Vandana Properties, reported in 353 ITR 36 as relied upon by the Assessee. He also considered the decision of Hon’ble ITAT, Pune regarding the appeal filed by the Assessee for similar issues raised for A Y 2010-11, challenging the decision of the CIT(A), deciding the case in favour of the Assessee. The AO observed as below: “4.17 I have given careful consideration to the decision of the H…

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD vs. SHREE PARSHWANATH CORPORATION,, AHMEDABAD

ITA 25/AHD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pramod M Jagtap & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri James Kurian, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Vartik Choksi, A.R
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…e Act to the assessee for prorata units completed by the assessee before stipulated date, The issue in this regard is settled by various decisions of the High Courts including the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Vandana Properties reported in 353 ITR 36 ITA No. 24&25/Ahd/2020 DCIT vs. Shree Parshwanath Corporation Asst.Year –2013-14 & 2014-15 (Bom.), wherein it has been held that the developer is entitled to pro-rate deduction under section 80IB(10) of the act on the completed units.” (iv) Hon’ble Pune ITAT in case of M/s Varun Developers in ITA No. 1624/PN/2011 dated 22.03.2013 In view of deta…

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD vs. SHREE PARSHWANATH CORPORATION,, AHMEDABAD

ITA 24/AHD/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pramod M Jagtap & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri James Kurian, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Vartik Choksi, A.R
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…e Act to the assessee for prorata units completed by the assessee before stipulated date, The issue in this regard is settled by various decisions of the High Courts including the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Vandana Properties reported in 353 ITR 36 ITA No. 24&25/Ahd/2020 DCIT vs. Shree Parshwanath Corporation Asst.Year –2013-14 & 2014-15 (Bom.), wherein it has been held that the developer is entitled to pro-rate deduction under section 80IB(10) of the act on the completed units.” (iv) Hon’ble Pune ITAT in case of M/s Varun Developers in ITA No. 1624/PN/2011 dated 22.03.2013 In view of deta…

ACIT, CIRCLE-5(2), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. WEST WING INFRA PROJECTS., AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2125/AHD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Waseem Ahmed & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2012-13 Acit, Cir.5(2) M/S.West Wing Infra Projects Ahmedabad. Vs 1, Dhaval Society, Part-I Opp: St. Zaviers School Navrangpura Ahmedabad. Pan : Aaafw 7956 P अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rupesh Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Urjit Shah, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 15/02/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/02/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per T.R. Senthil Kumar: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against Order Dated 16.07.2018 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-5/Ito, Wd.5(2)(4)/135/2015-16 Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-5, Ahmedabad [For Short “Ld.Cit(A)] Relating To The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Sole Issue Raised By The Revenue Is That The Ld.Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Restricting Addition At Rs.1,81,06,445/- Made U/S.80Ib(10) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To The Act] To Rs.11,83,663/-. 2

For Appellant: Shri Rupesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Urjit Shah, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 801B(10)Section 80I

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘A’ अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD (Conducted Through Virtual Court) ] ] BEFORE WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2012-13 ACIT, Cir.5(2) M/s.West Wing Infra Projects Ahmedabad. Vs 1, Dhaval Society, Part-I Opp: St. Zaviers School Navrangpura Ahmedabad. PAN : AAAFW 7956 P अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Rupesh Shah, AR Re…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(2), BENGALURU vs. M/S. PURVANKARA PROJECTS LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 348/BANG/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CA
Section 139(1)Section 80Section 80I

…ual aspects by examining the books of accounts, materials, information and explanations of the assessee and decide the issue in accordance with the decisions rendered in the case of Viswas Promoters (214 Taxmann 525) (Mad) and CIT vs Vandana Properties (2013) 353 ITR 36 (Bom). 5. The AO noticed that the assessee has submitted the following documents among others:- ITA Nos.347 & 348/Bang/2021 Page 4 of 11 (i) Details containing project commencement date and (ii) completion date for all the projects u/s 801B of IT Act. (ii) Project wise detailed profit and loss account for all the projects u/s 801B of the IT Act…

Showing 1–20 of 88 · Page 1 of 5

CIT v. Vandana Properties (353 ITR 36) — Cited in 88 Judgments | BharatTax