How many judgments cite Dhoomketu Builders & Development (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT?

41 judgments on BharatTax cite Dhoomketu Builders & Development (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (368 ITR 680), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Dhoomketu Builders & Development (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 139(1), Section 139(5), Section 142(1), Section 143(2), Section 145(2), Section 263.

Dhoomketu Builders & Development (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT

368 ITR 680High Court2014#2923 most cited

What is Dhoomketu Builders & Development (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT authority for?

A real estate development business is considered 'set up' when the assessee is in a position to undertake activities for the acquisition, development, and exploitation of real estate. Expenses incurred between the setting up and commencement of such a business are allowable, even if no revenue is generated or land is classified as a non-current investment.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Dhoomketu Builders & Development (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT · 368 ITR 680 · setting up of business · commencement of business · real estate developer expenses · expenses before revenue generation · allowability of pre-commencement expenditure · section 3 · revenue expenditure · section 145(2)

Sections most often in play

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 145(2)Section 263 Section 3 Section 32

Issues it is cited on

revenue expenditure business company section 14 section 143 section 143(3)india person total income document interest

Judgments citing Dhoomketu Builders & Development (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT

ROHAN LANDSCAPE PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, , MUMBAI

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

ITA 3635/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 263Section 3

…nd that there may be an interregnum between setting up and commencement during which expenditure is fully allowable. This principle has been repeatedly reiterated, including by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT v. Dhoomketu Builders & Development Pvt. Ltd. (368 ITR 680), where it was specifically held that in the 14 Rohan Landscape Private Limited case of a real estate developer, the business is set up when the assessee is in a position to undertake activities towards acquisition, development and exploitation of real estate, and that actual acquisition of land or earning of income is not the determinative test.…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3), CHENNAI vs. CASA GRANDE HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1709/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1709/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Casa Grande Homes Private Limited, New No. 111, Old No. 59, 6Th Floor, Income Tax, Central Circle 1(3), Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai 600 041. Chennai. [Pan:Aagcc1182Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Reddi Prakash, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 12.02.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 18, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 44 Days. The Dcit Central Circle 1(3)(I/C), Chennai Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, We Find The Reasons Stated By The Appellant-Revenue

For Appellant: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCITFor Respondent: Shri G. Reddi Prakash, CA

Section 145(2)

…akash, CA submits that the principles laid down in guidance note as well as ICDS were one and the same and to support his argument, placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT v. Dhumketu Builders and Development Ltd. 368 ITR 680 (Del). He submits that identical issue on similar facts and circumstances was in appeal before this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for AY 2016-17, wherein, the Tribunal decided the issue against the Revenue, which has been followed in the impugned order and prayed to confirm the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). 7. Heard both the parties and peru…

DIVYANIDHI BUILDCON PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

ITA 616/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Jain (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 45(3)

…etting up of business and commencement of business are allowable- Sarabhai Management Corp v/s CIT 102 ITR 25 (Guj) affirmed in CIT v/s Sarabhai Management Corp Ltd. 192 ITR 151 (SC). Similar observations made by Delhi High Court in CIT V/s Dhoomketu Builders 368 ITR 680 (Del) 3. The A.O. as well as the C.I.T. (Appeals) has erred in holding that the assessee has not carried on any business activity. They have erroneously relied on the classification of the asset as 'Non Current Investment' in the balance sheet with sub heads: (i) Investment in Land/Project Development (ii) Investment in A.O.P; both as 'Non curren…

DS REALTY AND REALTOR P.LTD,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 7(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1313/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1313/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 बनाम Ds Realty & Realtor P. Ltd., Acit Sco No. 310, Third Floor, Vs. Circle-7(1), Sector-29, Gohana, Haryana. New Delhi. Pan No. Aaecd6823D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

…that non- earning of income per se cannot he the ground for disallowing claim of expenses. 5. Ld. Counsel for the Assessee placing reliance on the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Dhoomketu Builders & Development P. Ltd. (368 ITR 680) submits that on identical circumstances the claim for expenses was allowed holding that the business would be treated as commenced upon purchase of land by the assessee who is in the business of real estate. 6. Heard rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below. On perusal of the assessment order, we noticed that the only re…

KADAVANTHARA BUILDERS PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. ITO, WARD -4(2), CHENNAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2485/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 May 2023AY 2015-16

Section 143(3)

…lowance of expenditure and enhancement of income Expenditure incurred alter setting up of the business is allowable expenditure 1. Swire Holdings (P.) Ltd. v ITO [2006] 6 SOT 621 (Bang- Trib.) (SMC) 2. CIT v. Dhoornketu Builders & Development (P.) Ltd. [2013] 368 ITR 680 (Del) 3. CIT v. Arcane Developers (P.) Ltd. [2014] 368 ITR 627 (Del) 4. S. L. Plotted Development Projects P Ltd v DCII [2018] IT(TP)A No. 1497/ Bang/2014 (Bang - Trib.) 5. Jindal Realty (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT [2020] 183 lTD 228 (Del Trib.) 6. Superlight Mktg. (P.) Ltd. v ITO [2005] 4 SOT 348 (Del - Trib.) 7. UI Development India (P.) Ltd v. ACIT (201…

KADAVANTHARA BUILDERS PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. ITO, WARD -4(2), CHENNAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2484/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 May 2023AY 2014-15

Section 143(3)

GLEN PROPBUILD PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 10(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2752/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Apr 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr.D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

…825 (Bom) 17. Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. R.B. Wadkar: [2004] 268 ITR 332 (Bom) 18. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Hughes Escorts Communications, [2009] 311 ITR 253 (Delhi) 19. Commissioner of Income Tax-IV Vs. Dhoomketu Builders & Development (P.) Ltd., [2014] 368 ITR 680 (Delhi) 20. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Whirlpool of India Ltd., I.T.A. No.2752/Del/2018 5 (2009] 318 ITR 347 (Delhi). 7. Per contra, ld. DR relied upon the CIT(A)’s order. 8. We have carefully considered the submissions. We note that reopening notice in this case has been issued after four years of the original assessment under Section 143…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MAGNUM INTERNATIONAL TRADING COMPANY PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2511/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Bhalla, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37Section 37(1)

…s Pvt. Ltd. - TS-548-ITAT-2022 (Del) ii. ITAT Delhi in the case of HMS Real Estate Pvt. Ltd.- iii. ITAT Delhi in the case of Hike Pvt. Ltd.- ITA No.2906/Del/2018 (A.Y. 2012-13) iv. High Court of Delhi in the case of Dhoomketu Builders & Development (P) Ltd. - 368 ITR 680 to (Delhi) we hereby decline to interfere with the order of the ld CIT(A) on this issue Disallowance of expenditure u/s 14A : 6. The AO disallowed an amount of Rs. 5,53,840/- on account of expenses incurred u/s 14A of the Act in relation to income not includible in total income. The facts reveal that the assessee has disallowed Rs. 9,33,884/- w…

DCIT CIR 6(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. KARJAT GOLF CLUB P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 638/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.638/Mum/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit, Circle-6(3)(2), Vs. Karjat Golf Club P. Ltd., Mumbai. Tower, 1502 B One India Bulls Centre, 841 Jupier Mills, Off Senapati Bpat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai- 400013 Pan : Aadck0915A Appellant Respondent C.O. No.236/Mum/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita No.638/Mum/2016) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 Karjat Golf Club P. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle-6(3)(2), Tower, 1502 B One India Mumbai. Bulls Centre, 841 Jupier Mills, Off Senapati Bpat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai- 400013 Pan : Aadck0915A Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Keyur Patel Assessee By : Shri Vilesh Dalya Date Of Hearing : 15.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.11.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 12, Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri Vilesh DalyaFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.638/MUM/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 DCIT, Circle-6(3)(2), Vs. Karjat Golf Club P. Ltd., Mumbai. Tower, 1502 B One India Bulls Centre, 841 Jupier Mills, Off Senapati Bpat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai- 400013 PAN : AADCK0915A Appellant Respondent C.O. No.236/MUM/2017 (Arising out of ITA No.638/MUM/2016) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 Karjat Golf Club P. Ltd., Vs. DCIT, Circle-6(3)(2), Tower, 1502 B One India Mumbai. Bu…

ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI vs. CASA GRANDE HOMES P LTD, CHENNAI

Appeal is allowed

ITA 3491/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Reddy Prakash (C.A) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan (Addl.CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

…year of occurrence. It was also submitted that the principles laid down in guidance note as well as in ICDS were one and the same. Reliance was placed, inter- alia, on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT V/s Dhumketu Builders and Development Ltd. (368 ITR 680) to support the same. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) concurred with the assessee’s submissions and held as under: - The submissions of the appellant were examined vis-à-vis the findings of the Assessing Officer. In his order u/s. 143(3) dated 27/12/2018, the AO disallowed the 'Other expenses' amounting to Rs.5,15,44,310/- on the ground that construction cost…

ITO WARD-7(2), NEW DELHI vs. DARRAMEKS HOTELS & DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 9888/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 9888/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Income Tax Officer, Vs Darrameks Hotels & Developers Ward-7(2), Pvt. Ltd., 15, Ring Road, Lajpat New Delhi Nagar, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccd9005F

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjiv Rai Mehra, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Lalit Kishore, Sr. DR

Section 179Section 62(1)(a)Section 62(2)

…enses u/s 37(1) and u/s 32 have to the allowed. 11. In this regard, reference is made to the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Dhoomketu 8 Darrameks Hotels & Developers Pvt. Ltd. Builders and Development Pvt. Ltd. reported in 368 ITR 680, where in Para 9, it is held as under: “The Tribunal has observed that having regard to the business of the assessee, which is the development of real estates, the participation in the tender represents commencement of one activity which would enable the assessee to acquire the land for development If the assessee is in a position to commence bu…

ITO CORPORATE WARD 1(3), CHENNAI vs. C.S.HOUSING PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

Accordingly, the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is confirmed and the appeal of the Revenue in I.T.A No.2427/Chny/2018 is dismissed

ITA 2427/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr. AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Mr. R. Sivaraman, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 35D

…); ii. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Samsung India Electronics Limited (2013) 356 ITR 354 (Del.); iii. Carefour Wc & C India P. Limited Vs. DCIT (2014) 368 ITR 692 (Del.); iv. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Dhoomketu Builder and Development P. Limited (2014) 368 ITR 680 (Del.); v. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Axis Private Equity Limited (Bombay High Court), 391 ITR 370; vi. Maruti Insurance Broking Private Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 435 ITR 34. - 9 - | P a g e I.T.A No.2427/Chny/2018 15. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) after considering the relevant facts has rightly held that the…

ACIT, CIRCLE-30(1), NEW DELHI vs. MSK (JV), NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7232/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri R. S. Singhvi, C. A.; &For Respondent: Shri M. N. Shete, Sr. D.R

Section 3

…ESPN SOFTWARE INDIA P. LTD. (2008) 301 ITR 368 (Del.); (ii) CIT Vs. Samsung India Electronics Ltd. (2013) 356 ITR 354 (Del.); (iii) Carefour Wc & C India P. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2014) 368 ITR 692 (Del.); (iv) CIT Vs. Dhoomketu Builder And Development P Ltd. (2014) 368 ITR 680 (Del.); (v) CIT Vs. Axis Pvt. Equity Limited (Bombay High Court) 391 ITR 370; (vi) Maruti Insurance Broking Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT 435 ITR 34. 7. Thus, we do not find any merit in the case of the revenue and accordingly, the order of the ld. CIT (Appeals) is confirmed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on…

MARUTI INSURANCE BROKING PVT LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms

ITA/17/2021HC Delhi12 Apr 2021

For Appellant: - ........................................................ 5For Respondent: - ............................................................. 6

Section 260ASection 3

…n this context, in particular, Mr. Vohra relied upon the judgment of this Court rendered in CIT vs. Whirlpool of India Ltd., 318 ITR 347 (Del). Mr. Vohra also relied upon the decisions rendered in CIT v. Dhoomketu Builders & Development (P.) Ltd., [2014] 368 ITR 680 (Del) and Western India Vegetable Products Ltd. v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 151 (Bom). 3.1. In addition to the aforesaid, Mr. Vohra also drew our attention to the fact [something which we have already noticed hereinabove while capturing the backdrop of the case], that in the earlier AY, i.e., A.Y. 2011-2012, the assessee had filed a loss return, w…

MUTHOOT AGRI DEVELOPMENT & HOSPITALITIES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 15(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2236/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Bleshri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Muthoot Agri Development & V. Dcit – 15(2)(2) Hospitalities Private Limited Room No. 357, 3Rd Floor M/S. Varma & Varma Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai – 400 020 Chartered Accountants E-3, Sahasram, Elankom Gardens Sasthamangalam Thiruvanthpuram Kerala – 695010 Pan: Aagcm5045A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sukhsagar Syal Department By Shri Bharat Andhle

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar Syal

Section 36(1)(iii)

…amounting to Rs.57,89,790/-. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to consider the decision of the Hon. Delhi High Court that in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Dhoomketu Builders and Development Pvt Ltd reported in (2014) 368 ITR 680 (Delhi) wherein it has been that in the case of real estate company, the business can be said to have been commenced on acquisition of land, since after acquisition of such land, the assessee was in a position to do business as the business has been set up. The ratio above decisions has been relied on and followed by Hon. Delhi 'B' Bench of ITAT…

MUTHOOT AGRI DEVELOPMENT & HOSPITALITIES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 15(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed

ITA 2237/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2020AY 2014-15

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri O. P. Meena (Sr. AR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…S amounting to Rs.12,380/-. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to consider the decision of the I Ion. Delhi High Court that in the ease of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Dhoomketu Builders and Development Pvt. Ltd reported in (2014) 368 ITR 680 (Delhi) wherein it has been that in the case of real estate company, the business can be said to have been commenced on acquisition of land, since alter acquisition of such land the assessee was in a position to do business as the business has been set up. The ratio above decisions has been relied on and followed by Hon. Delhi B' Bench of ITAT in…

M/S BENGAL SHRIRAM HITECH CITY PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 122/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Oct 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2012 – 13

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mallikarjuna G., D.R

…ollowed the decision rendered by another co-ordinate bench in the case of Bangalore Goa Estate Pvt Ltd (supra), which in turn has followed the decision rendered by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Dhoomketu Builders and Development P Ltd (2014)(368 ITR 680)(Delhi). 13. In the case of Dhoomketu Builders and Development P Ltd (supra), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has examined an identical issue and decided the same as under:- “9. The Tribunal has observed that having regard to the business of the assessee, which is the development of real estates, the participation in the tender represents commence…

M/S BENGAL SHRIRAM HITECH CITY PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 121/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Oct 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2012 – 13

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mallikarjuna G., D.R

BENGAL SHRIRAM HITECH CITY PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 1341/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Oct 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2012 – 13

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mallikarjuna G., D.R

JINDAL REALITY PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 1651/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Shri N.K.Billaiya, Am [Through Video Conferencing] आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.5057/Del/2010 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year 2007-08 Jindal Reality Pvt.Ltd. Flat No.1104, 11Th Floor, Hemkunt Chamber, 89Th Nehru Place, New Delhi. ..........अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan-Aaccd2575L Vs The Dcit, …………. ""यथ" / Respondent Circle-4(1), New Delhi-110002. अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv. & Sh. Deepesh Jain, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sh. J.K.Mishra, Cit Dr

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. J.K.Mishra, CIT DR

Section 143(3)

…table Products Ltd. vs CIT 26 ITR 151 (Bom.); Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Ltd. 91 ITR 170 (Guj.) and Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the cases of Dhoomketu Builders & Development (P.) Ltd. vs ACIT 368 ITR 680 (Del.) and in CIT vs Arcane Developers (P) Ltd. 368 ITR 627 (Del.), has held as under:- “19. Applying the above said proposition to the facts of the present case, we hold that in the case of the assessee where substantial activities were carried out by the assessee, since the date of incorporation which had culminated in raising loans, making…

Showing 1–20 of 41 · Page 1 of 3