CIT v. Vandana Properties

353 ITR 36High Court2013#1293 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 366,470 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

Income-Tax Officer vs. Yash Associates, Pune

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1164/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1164/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Income Tax Officer, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Ward 12(1), Pune …. Vs. M/S. Yash Associates, 401, 4Th Floor, Shreepal Chambers, 481/C, Shaniwar Peth, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Pune – 411030 Pan: Aaafy6149E

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Kumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri Nilesh Khandelwal
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…ection 80IB(10) of the Act and held the assessee to have complied the requirement of M/s. Yash Associates section 80IB(10)(a) of the Act. The assessee also placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Vandana Properties reported in 353 ITR 36 (Bom). The Assessing Officer however, distinguished the facts before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and also did not accept the proposition laid down by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case and reiterated that the project ‘Ravi Park’ shall be deemed to have been approved on the date on which first approval of building plan was granted by local autho…

Shreechand Builders P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 9(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1984/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon‟Ble Sh.R. C. Sharma, Am& Hon‟Ble Sandeep Gosain, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunamiyaFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 801B

…and garden area / amenities of 542.96 Sq. Meters, i.e. 0.89443 Acre of free built up area and 0.134168 Acre of garden / amenities. Ld. AR also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vandana Properties reported in 353 ITR 36, wherein it was held that the size of plot of land was not relevant if other conditions stands fulfilled by the assessee and hence dis-allowance on this 11 I.T.A. No. 1982-1985/Mum/2014 Shreechand Builders Pvt. Ltd. and Shreechand Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. condition made by the Ld. CIT(A) was redundant at-least for the "Bombay Jurisdiction"…

The J.K. Trust Bombay, Mumbai vs. CIT (E), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3769/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S The J. K. Trust Cit (Exemption) Bombay, R. No.617, 6Th Floor, बनाम/ New Hind House, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Narottam Morrjee Marg, Lalbaug, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400001

Section 11Section 263

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, ‘जे’,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “J”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एन. के. "धान, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri N.K. Pradhan, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s The J. K. Trust CIT (Exemption) Bombay, R. No.617, 6th Floor, बनाम/ New Hind House, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Narottam Morrjee Marg, Lalbaug, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400001 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) PAN. No. AAATT0611L "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Shri Rakesh Mohan राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue by Shri…

Maharashtra Airport Development, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 3, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3741/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Maharashtra Airport Pr. Cit-3, Development Company 612, 6Th Floor, बनाम/ Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 8Th Floor, World Trade M. K. Road, Centre, Tower No.1, Mumbai-400020 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aadcm9623M

Section 148Section 154Section 263Section 80I

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, ‘बी’,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES, ‘B’ MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s Maharashtra Airport Pr. CIT-3, Development Company 612, 6th Floor, बनाम/ Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 8th Floor, World Trade M. K. Road, Centre, Tower No.1, Mumbai-400020 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) PAN. No. AADCM9623M "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Shri Salil Kapoor & Shri Sumit Lalchand…

DCIT 6(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Indorigin Electric Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue in ITA No

ITA 4677/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh() & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 80I

…ilt up area / carpet area of flats constructed was less than 1500 sq.ft. The sum and substance of the arguments of the assessee before the Ld.CIT(A) are that in view of the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Vandana Properties (2013) 353 ITR 36 (Bom), the assessee is eligible for proportionate deduction towards profit of eligible housing project where the flat size is less than 1500 sq.ft. The CIT(A), after considering relevant submissions of the assessee and also relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs Vandana Properties (supra) and also the decis…

Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax (OSD) vs. Prithvi Erectors & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Pune

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

ITA 927/PUN/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Deven ShethFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi
Section 80ISection 80l

…ances. We find that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) after thoroughly examining the facts of the case and after placing reliance on the decision of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vandana Properties reported as 353 ITR 36 and the decision of Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Rahul Construction Vs. Income Tax Officer in ITA No. 1250/PN/2009 decided on 30-03-2012 allowed the claim of assessee. We do not find any infirmity in the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on this issue. Buildings P and Q of the housing project „Krishna Kamal‟ on standalone…

Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax (OSD) vs. Prithvi Erectors & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Pune

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

ITA 926/PUN/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Deven ShethFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi
Section 80ISection 80l

…ances. We find that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) after thoroughly examining the facts of the case and after placing reliance on the decision of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vandana Properties reported as 353 ITR 36 and the decision of Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Rahul Construction Vs. Income Tax Officer in ITA No. 1250/PN/2009 decided on 30-03-2012 allowed the claim of assessee. We do not find any infirmity in the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on this issue. Buildings P and Q of the housing project „Krishna Kamal‟ on standalone…

Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax (OSD) vs. Prithvi Erectors & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Pune

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

ITA 925/PUN/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 May 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Deven ShethFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi
Section 80ISection 80l

…ances. We find that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) after thoroughly examining the facts of the case and after placing reliance on the decision of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vandana Properties reported as 353 ITR 36 and the decision of Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Rahul Construction Vs. Income Tax Officer in ITA No. 1250/PN/2009 decided on 30-03-2012 allowed the claim of assessee. We do not find any infirmity in the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on this issue. Buildings P and Q of the housing project „Krishna Kamal‟ on standalone…

Manjeera Projects, Hyd, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 1082/HYD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Dr. K. Srinivas Reddy, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 80Section 801B(10)Section 80I

…ITA Nos 1704 1082 and 1230 Manjeera Projects Hyderabad. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, Judicial Member AND Shri S.Rifaur Rahman, Accountant Member ITA Nos.1704/Hyd/2014, 1230/Hyd/2015 & 1082/Hyd/2016 (Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13) Manjeera Projects Vs ITO Ward – 6 ( 2 ) Hyderabad Hyderabad PAN:AAOFM 0872 C (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri K.C. Devdas For Revenue : Dr. K. Srinivas Reddy, DR Date of Hearing: 13.02.2018 Date of Pronouncement: 27.04.2018 O R D E R Per Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, J.M. These are all as…

Manjeera Projects, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-6(2), Hyderabad

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 1230/HYD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Dr. K. Srinivas Reddy, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 80Section 801B(10)Section 80I

…ITA Nos 1704 1082 and 1230 Manjeera Projects Hyderabad. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, Judicial Member AND Shri S.Rifaur Rahman, Accountant Member ITA Nos.1704/Hyd/2014, 1230/Hyd/2015 & 1082/Hyd/2016 (Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13) Manjeera Projects Vs ITO Ward – 6 ( 2 ) Hyderabad Hyderabad PAN:AAOFM 0872 C (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri K.C. Devdas For Revenue : Dr. K. Srinivas Reddy, DR Date of Hearing: 13.02.2018 Date of Pronouncement: 27.04.2018 O R D E R Per Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, J.M. These are all as…

Manjeera Projects, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-6(2), Hyderabad

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 1704/HYD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Dr. K. Srinivas Reddy, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 80Section 801B(10)Section 80I

…ITA Nos 1704 1082 and 1230 Manjeera Projects Hyderabad. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, Judicial Member AND Shri S.Rifaur Rahman, Accountant Member ITA Nos.1704/Hyd/2014, 1230/Hyd/2015 & 1082/Hyd/2016 (Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13) Manjeera Projects Vs ITO Ward – 6 ( 2 ) Hyderabad Hyderabad PAN:AAOFM 0872 C (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri K.C. Devdas For Revenue : Dr. K. Srinivas Reddy, DR Date of Hearing: 13.02.2018 Date of Pronouncement: 27.04.2018 O R D E R Per Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, J.M. These are all as…

Maruti Estate (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 321/CTK/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 Apr 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2004-05

For Appellant: Shri P.R.Mohanty, ARFor Respondent: Shri A. Tigga, DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 80I

…Asse ssment Year : 20 04- 05 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE S/SHRI N.S SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2004-05 Maruti Estates (India) Pvt Vs. ACIT, Circle -2(1), Ltd., Plot No.516/1755, 4th Bhubaneswar. floor, Maruti Corner, Patia Big Bazar, Patia, Bhubaneswar. PAN/GIR No.AACCM 1339 D (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee by : Shri P.R.Mohanty, AR Revenue by : Shri A. Tigga, DR Date of Hearing : 12/04/ 2018 Date of Pronouncement : 17 /04/ 2018 O R D E R Per N.S.Saini, AM This is an appeal filed by the assessee against…

Mavani & Sons, Mumbai vs. ITO 27(2)(2)

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1374/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhita No.1373/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year- 2008-09) Mavani & Sons Ito-27(2)(2) B-2, Gurudatt Building, 2Nd Floor, Vashi Income Tax Office, Vs. Navi Mumbai. Patel Chowk, Ghatkopar (East), Mumbai-400077 Pan: Aaafm7710R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay R. Singh (Ar) Revenue By : Shri V. Justin (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 07.03.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.03.2018 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. These Two Appeal By Assessee Under Section 253 Of Income Tax Act Are Directed Against The Common Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh (AR)For Respondent: Shri V. Justin (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 80I

…of his submission, the Ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT v/s. Aakash Nidhi Builders & Developers [2016] 76 taxmann.com 86 (SC) and in case of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Vandana Properties [2013] 353 ITR 36 (Bom.). 4. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the Revenue supported the order of authorities below. The Ld. DR for the Revenue further submits that by claiming such relief, the purpose of amendment brought under section 80IB(10) would defeat the purpose of amendment. The Ld. DR further submits that while making amendment under section 80IB(10)(a)(i…

Asst CIT Cir 2, Thane vs. Ashish Construction Co., Thane

In the result, the common question of law framed in these two appeals are answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue

ITA 4288/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2006 - 2007 Asst. Cit Circle-2, Ashish Construction Co., Thane S-1, Narmada Apartments, बनाम/ Cabin Road, Bhayander Vs. Road (E), Thane 401 105 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aajfa4249G राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri V Vidhyadhar "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Sanjay Sharma

Section 80Section 80I

…plot of land. 2. At the outset, during hearing, Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the assessee claimed that the impugned issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision from Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vandana Properties (353 ITR 36). This factual matrix was claimed to be correct by learned DR Shri V Vidyadhar. 3. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The facts in brief are that the assessee firm undertook a construction of housing project. The assessee claimed deduction u/s. 80IB(10) on the income arising from housing project…

Vijay Grihnirman P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 15 & 16, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3280/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2011-12 Vijay Grihanirman P. Ltd. Acit, 205, Marine Chambers, Central Circle-15 & 16, बनाम/ 43, New Marine Line, Mumbai Vs. Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacv2806N Shri Rajat Mittal-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Mani Jain & Shri Prateek Jain

Section 80I

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ,सी,मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “C”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी रिमत कोचर, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Ramit Kochar, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vijay Grihanirman P. Ltd. ACIT, 205, Marine Chambers, Central Circle-15 & 16, बनाम/ 43, New Marine Line, Mumbai Vs. Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) PAN. No.AAACV2806N Shri Rajat Mittal-DR राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue by "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Shri Mani Jain & Shri Prateek Jain सुनवाई क" तार"ख /…

ITO 32(3)(5), Mumbai vs. Vandana Properties, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1396/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 1396 & 1397/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years:2011-12 & 2012-13) Income Tax Officer-32(3)(5), M/S Vandana Properties Room No. 104, 1St Floor, B-602, Prem Nagar, 06, Mcf बिधम/ Bldg. No. C-11, Udyan Marg, Borivali (West), Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 092. Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aaafv3003F (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

For Appellant: Shri Sameer Dalal, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 801B(10)Section 80ISection 80l

…be less than 1 acre. The submission of the assessee that its claim of deduction under Sec. 80IB(10) 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 P a g e |…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S. K.D. Construction Unit - 1, Pune

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1329/PUN/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nilesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar
Section 133ASection 80I

…आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण “ए” न्यायऩीठ ऩुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE श्री डी. करुणाकरा राव, ऱेखा सदस्य, एवं श्री ववकास अवस्थी, न्याययक सदस्य के समक्ष । BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / ITA No. 1234/PUN/2014 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/s. K.D. Constructions Unit-1, MZSK & Associates, Chartered Accountants, Level 3, Riverside Business Bay, Plot No. : 84, Wellesley Road, Near RTO, Pune-411001 PAN : AABFK3388E .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/s. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2(2), Pune ……प्रत्यथी / Re…

M/S. K.D. Constructions Unit - 1, Pune vs. Asssistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1235/PUN/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nilesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar
Section 133ASection 80I

…आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण “ए” न्यायऩीठ ऩुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE श्री डी. करुणाकरा राव, ऱेखा सदस्य, एवं श्री ववकास अवस्थी, न्याययक सदस्य के समक्ष । BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / ITA No. 1234/PUN/2014 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/s. K.D. Constructions Unit-1, MZSK & Associates, Chartered Accountants, Level 3, Riverside Business Bay, Plot No. : 84, Wellesley Road, Near RTO, Pune-411001 PAN : AABFK3388E .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/s. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2(2), Pune ……प्रत्यथी / Re…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S. B.U. Bhandari Schemes, Pune

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 205/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 205/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri V.L. JainFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT
Section 80I

…order dated 28.03.2013, the assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vandana Properties reported as 353 ITR 36 held that the assessee is eligible for claiming deduction u/s. 80IB (10) of the Act and reversed the findings of Assessing Officer. Now, the Revenue is in appeal before Tribunal. Assailing the findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the Department has raised following grounds in appeal : A.Y. 2010 -11 “1. On the facts and the circum…

DCIT Cen Cir 40, Mumbai vs. Saf Yeast Co. P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1780/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am

For Appellant: J.P. Bairagra, ARFor Respondent: B.C.S. Naik, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…ial interpretation by the ITAT in the case of SIAL SBEC Bioenergy Ltd. vs. DCIT (2004) 83 TTJ 866(Del) has held that ‘steam’ is a form of ‘power’ as contemplated in Section 80-IA of the Act. This order is upheld by Hon’ble Bombay High Court reported in (2013) 353 ITR 36. In the case of SIAL SEBC Bioenergy case the assessee earned money from supply of power to SBEC Sugar Ltd and after whatever power was consumed by SBEC Sugar Ltd., the surplus power remaining was supplied to the U.P. State Electricity Board. Apart from the receipts generated through the supply of power, the assessee also received some amount on ac…