How many judgments cite CIT v. Vandana Properties?

88 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Vandana Properties (353 ITR 36), spanning 2015 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Vandana Properties come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 80IB, Section 80IB(1), Section 80IB(10), Section 10(23G), Section 143(3), Section 250.

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.

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

Issues it is cited on

section 80ib(10)section 80ib section 80i child section 80 previous year prescribed business person total income section 143(3)company

Judgments citing CIT v. Vandana Properties

ITO 25(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Vandana Properties, Mumbai

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 5166/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 5166/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri Sameer Dalal

Section 80Section 80I

…nt the deduction to the assessee u/s 80IB(10) of the Act.” 6.2 It was also submitted that the said decision of ITAT was also challenge by the revenue before Hon’ble High Court and the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vandana Properties (2012) 353 ITR 36 (Mum) has dismissed the appeal of the Revenue and uphold the order of ITAT. On the other hand ld. DR relied upon the orders of the AO. 6.3 We have analyse the order of CIT(A). The CIT(A) after considering the case of both the parties has categorically held that the issue with regard to granting of deduction to the assessee u/s 80IB(10) of the I…

ITO., Ward-3(2), Thane vs. Sadhana Builders Pvt.Ltd., Thane

ITA 597/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Sandeep Gosainआयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/.Ita No.597/Mum/2013 ,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Assessment Year-2009-10 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2) M/S. Sadhana Builders Pvt. Ltd. Room No.4, B-Wing, 6Th Floor Dhaval Chhaya, Talaopali Ashar It Park, Wagle Estate Vs Ram Ganesh Gadkhari Path Thane(W)-400 604. Thane(W)-400 601. Pan:Aabcs 4673 D

For Appellant: Shri L.P. Singh -ARFor Respondent: Shri Sachidanand Dubey-DR

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 80I

…अिधकरण, ‘ई’ खंडपीठ आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण खंडपीठ मुंबई मुंबई आयकर आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण खंडपीठ खंडपीठ मुंबई मुंबई INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI “E” BENCH सव"ी सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" सव"ी राजे"" राजे"", लेखा राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं सद"य एवं एवं संदीप गोसांई एवं संदीप गोसांई संदीप गोसांई, "याियक सद"य संदीप गोसांई "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य Before S/Sh. Rajendra,Accountant Member & Sandeep Gosain,Judicial Member आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/.ITA No.597/Mum/2013 ,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Assessment Year-2009-10 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Income tax Off…

ITO WD 1(2), Kalyan vs. Kantilal Dhanraj Jain (HUF), Bhiwandi

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2743/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2743/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Income Tax Officer, Kantilal Dhanraj Jain (Huf) बनाम/ Ward 1(2), Kalyan, 1St Floor, H. No. 64/2, 1St Floor, Mohan Plaza, Wayale Nagar, Malani Bhuwan, Prabhu Ali, Vs. Khadakpada, Kalyan Mandai, Bhiwandi – 421 302 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabhj 8351 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri B. S. Bist ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Sejal Lalit Jain सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 16.11.2015 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 27.11.2015 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Revenue Arising Out Of The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Thane (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 16.01.2014, Partly Allowing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting Its Assessment U/S.143(3) R/W S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2006-07 Vide Order Dated 30.12.2010. 2. The Only Issue Arising Per The Instant Appeal Is The Validity Of The Deletion Of The Disallowance Of The Assessee’S, A Huf In The Business Of Property Development, Claim

For Appellant: Shri B. S. BistFor Respondent: Ms. Sejal Lalit Jain

Section 143(3)Section 80

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “एक-सद"य मामला” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI "ी संजय अरोड़ा, लेखा सद"य के सम" । BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, AM आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2743/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Income Tax Officer, Kantilal Dhanraj Jain (HUF) बनाम/ Ward 1(2), Kalyan, 1st Floor, H. No. 64/2, 1st floor, Mohan Plaza, Wayale Nagar, Malani Bhuwan, Prabhu Ali, Vs. Khadakpada, Kalyan Mandai, Bhiwandi – 421 302 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. AABHJ 8351 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by : Shri B. S. Bist ""यथ" क" ओ…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Omaxe Buildhome (P) Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5373/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu Assessment Year : 2008-09 Deputy Cit, Vs. M/S. Omaxe Ltd., Central Circle-4, 7-Lsc, Omaxe House, New Delhi. Kalkaji, New Delhi. (Pan: Aaaco0171H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Omaxe Ltd., Vs. Deputy Cit, 7-Lsc, Omaxe House, Central Circle-4, Kalkaji, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aaaco0171H) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.L. Meena, CIT(DR)

Section 10ISection 4Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH “E” NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI I.C. SUDHIR AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU Assessment year : 2008-09 Deputy CIT, vs. M/s. Omaxe Ltd., Central Circle-4, 7-LSC, Omaxe House, New Delhi. Kalkaji, New Delhi. (PAN: AAACO0171H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/s. Omaxe Ltd., Vs. Deputy CIT, 7-LSC, Omaxe House, Central Circle-4, Kalkaji, New Delhi. New Delhi. (PAN: AAACO0171H) (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA Nos. 5373, 4031 &4032 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 Deputy CIT, vs. M/s. Omaxe Buildhome (P) Ltd., Central Circle-4, 10-LSC, Omaxe Hous…

ITO 24(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Neeta Enterprises, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1652/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Sanjay Aroraassessment Year: 2009-10 Ito-24 (3)(2), M/S Neeta Enterprises, Ro. No.704, C-11, 7Th Floor, 141, Gundecha House, बनाम/ B.K.C. Bandra(East), Jawahar Nagar, Vs. Mumbai-400051 Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400062 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Aacgn4947M

Section 80I

…rations to be paid by the appellant and LIFPL were fixed at Rs.11.56 crore & 2 crore respectively in lieu of development rights received by them. 3.6 He has also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vandana Properties, 353 ITR 36 (Bom) and reference was made to the following observations: “The expression “housing projects” is neither defined under Section 2 of Act nor under section 801B(10) of the Act. Even under Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1988 as also under Development corporation Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 1991, the expression “housing project” is not define…

Commissioner of Income Tax-VI vs. Vrm India Ltd

ITA/318/2014HC Delhi18 Mar 2015

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

…ed by any person including the central or state government. 13. “Development” and construction of a housing project is an undefined phrase of wide import. The Bombay High Court the had occasion in Commissioner of Income Tax v Vandana Properties [2013] 353 ITR 36 (Bom) to decide the permissibility of deduction in a case where the assessee had to develop and construct a block of residential flats. The Court held that: “…the expression "housing project" in common parlance would mean constructing a building or group of buildings consisting of several residential units. In fact, the Explanation in section…

Commissioner of Income Tax-VI vs. Vrm India Ltd

ITA/320/2014HC Delhi18 Mar 2015

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

Commissioner of Income Tax-VI vs. Vrm India Ltd

ITA/2069/2010HC Delhi18 Mar 2015

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