ITO v. AIR Developers

122 ITD 125Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2010#6344 most cited
18

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2023.

Judgments citing ITO v. AIR Developers

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

…th a part of the project comprising of commercial area and balance residential area, the Hon'ble court allowed pro rata deduction in respect of profits from residential units out of the profits earned from the project 19.5.11. In ITO vs AIR Developers (2010) 122 ITD 125 (Nag), the Hon'ble ITAT held that the profits pertaining to residential units whose built up area exceeded 1500 sq ft will be excluded for the quantification of deduction u/s 80IB(10) and thereby allowed pro rata deduction for profits from eligible residential units. Similar view was taken by ITAT in the case of S J R Builder vs ACIT (2010) 3 ITR…

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

…th a part of the project comprising of commercial area and balance residential area, the Hon'ble court allowed pro rata deduction in respect of profits from residential units out of the profits earned from the project 19.5.11. In ITO vs AIR Developers (2010) 122 ITD 125 (Nag), the Hon'ble ITAT held that the profits pertaining to residential units whose built up area exceeded 1500 sq ft will be excluded for the quantification of deduction u/s 80IB(10) and thereby allowed pro rata deduction for profits from eligible residential units. Similar view was taken by ITAT in the case of S J R Builder vs ACIT (2010) 3 ITR…

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

…th a part of the project comprising of commercial area and balance residential area, the Hon'ble court allowed pro rata deduction in respect of profits from residential units out of the profits earned from the project 19.5.11. In ITO vs AIR Developers (2010) 122 ITD 125 (Nag), the Hon'ble ITAT held that the profits pertaining to residential units whose built up area exceeded 1500 sq ft will be excluded for the quantification of deduction u/s 80IB(10) and thereby allowed pro rata deduction for profits from eligible residential units. Similar view was taken by ITAT in the case of S J R Builder vs ACIT (2010) 3 ITR…

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

…th a part of the project comprising of commercial area and balance residential area, the Hon'ble court allowed pro rata deduction in respect of profits from residential units out of the profits earned from the project 19.5.11. In ITO vs AIR Developers (2010) 122 ITD 125 (Nag), the Hon'ble ITAT held that the profits pertaining to residential units whose built up area exceeded 1500 sq ft will be excluded for the quantification of deduction u/s 80IB(10) and thereby allowed pro rata deduction for profits from eligible residential units. Similar view was taken by ITAT in the case of S J R Builder vs ACIT (2010) 3 ITR…

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(3),, PUNE vs. LAXMAN SOPANRAO NIMHAN,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1870/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Sept 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Shri Navin Gupta
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80ISection 80l

…below:- a. Bramha Builders (Bom H.C.) b. Kumar Builders Consortium (ITA No.1164/PN/2012) c. Rohan Homes (ITA No.423/PN/2011) d. Ankit Enterprises Developers Ltd. (ITA No. 156 & 172/Pn/2011) e. Ekta Housing Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 3649/Mum/2009) f. Air Developers [122 ITD 125 (Nag)] g. Sheth Developers Pvt. Ltd. [33 SOT 277 (Mum)] h. Sanghvi & Doshi Enterprises [131 ITD 151 (Dhennai)(TM)] i. SJR Builders [3 ITR (Trib) 569 (Mum)] 7.3.3.8 In this connection, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding interpretation of the Legal status may be cited. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Bajaj Tempo Ltd Vs CIT (1…

HARSHVARDHAN CONSTRUCTIONS,MUMBAI vs. ITO 23(1)(5), MUMBAI

ITA 5225/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Ravish Soodharshvardhan Constructions Income Tax Officer 11, Happy Home, 244 Waterfield Road; Ward 23(1)(5), 1St Floor, Vs. Bandra West, Mumbai – 400 050. Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai – 400 007. Pan– Aadfh6590D (Appellant) (Respondent) Income Tax Officer Vs. Harshvardhan Construvctions Ward 23(1)(5), 1St Floor , 11, Happy Home, 244 Waterfield Road; Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Bandra West, Mumbai – 400 050. Mumbai – 400 007. Pan– Aadfh6590D Harshvardhan Constructions Income Tax Officer 11, Happy Home, 244 Waterfield Road; Ward 23(1)(5), 1St Floor, Vs. Bandra West, Mumbai – 400 050. Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai – 400 007. Pan– Aadfh6590D

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S.C Tiwari, CIT D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80I

…xman 524 (Mad) and CIT Vs. Elegant Estates (2016) 383 ITR 49 (Mad). Also, a similar view had been taken by various co- ordinate benches of the Tribunal in viz.(i). DCIT vs. Brigade Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.,(20Q8) 119 TT J (Bang) 269; (ii). AIR Developers.,(2010) 122 ITD 125 (Nag); (iii). Sheh Developers Pvt. Ltd. 33 SOT 277 (Bom); (iv). Runwal Multihousing Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT, ITA Nos. 1015, 1016 & 1017/PN/2011; (v) Brahma Associates Vs JCIT, 119 ITD 255 (Bom); (vi). Kumar Builders Consortium Vs ACIT, 7 Taxcorp (AT) 32844 (Pune); (vii). Tushar Developers Vs ITO, 6 Taxcorp (AT) 30190 (Pune); (viii). Kumrar Beharey Rath…

ITO 23(1)(5), MUMBAI vs. HARSHVARDHAN CONSTRUCTIONS, MUMBAI

ITA 5912/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Ravish Soodharshvardhan Constructions Income Tax Officer 11, Happy Home, 244 Waterfield Road; Ward 23(1)(5), 1St Floor, Vs. Bandra West, Mumbai – 400 050. Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai – 400 007. Pan– Aadfh6590D (Appellant) (Respondent) Income Tax Officer Vs. Harshvardhan Construvctions Ward 23(1)(5), 1St Floor , 11, Happy Home, 244 Waterfield Road; Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Bandra West, Mumbai – 400 050. Mumbai – 400 007. Pan– Aadfh6590D Harshvardhan Constructions Income Tax Officer 11, Happy Home, 244 Waterfield Road; Ward 23(1)(5), 1St Floor, Vs. Bandra West, Mumbai – 400 050. Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai – 400 007. Pan– Aadfh6590D

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S.C Tiwari, CIT D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80I

…xman 524 (Mad) and CIT Vs. Elegant Estates (2016) 383 ITR 49 (Mad). Also, a similar view had been taken by various co- ordinate benches of the Tribunal in viz.(i). DCIT vs. Brigade Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.,(20Q8) 119 TT J (Bang) 269; (ii). AIR Developers.,(2010) 122 ITD 125 (Nag); (iii). Sheh Developers Pvt. Ltd. 33 SOT 277 (Bom); (iv). Runwal Multihousing Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT, ITA Nos. 1015, 1016 & 1017/PN/2011; (v) Brahma Associates Vs JCIT, 119 ITD 255 (Bom); (vi). Kumar Builders Consortium Vs ACIT, 7 Taxcorp (AT) 32844 (Pune); (vii). Tushar Developers Vs ITO, 6 Taxcorp (AT) 30190 (Pune); (viii). Kumrar Beharey Rath…

THE ITO, WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. JAY KHODIYAR CORPORATION, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1764/AHD/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradipkumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1764/Ahd/2012 [Asstt.Year: 2009-10]

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Dev, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 80I

…f case laws it was held that- "(a) The open terrace is not covered and is open to sky and would not be part of the inner measurement of the residential floor at any floor level. (b) As per Hon'ble ITAT Nagpur bench order in the case of AIR Developers (2010) 122 ITD 125 where Hon'ble ITAT followed the decision of the Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Bengal Ambuja Housing Development Ltd. vs. Dy.CIT (IT appeal No.1595 (Kol) of 2005 dated 24.3.2006) held that on account of few residence having built-up area more than 1500 sq.ft. the entire deduction u/s.80IB(10) of the Act inclusive of 4 deduction for…

MANOJ KUMAR JOHARI,SIKAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, SIKAR

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

ITA 839/JPR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Vikash Rajvanshi (CA)For Respondent: Shri J.C. Kulhari (JCIT)
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 28Section 80I

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “A”, JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 839/JP/2017 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2010-11 cuke Manoj Kumar Johari, A.C.I.T., Vs. Prop.- The Art Palace, outside Circle- Sikar. Churu Gate, Ramgarh- Shekhawati, Sikar. PAN No.: ADWPJ 8870 A vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Vikash Rajvanshi (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri J.C. Kulhari (JCIT)…

ITO WD 2(3), KALYAN vs. NANCY ICON BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS, ULHASNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6491/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jul 2018AY 2009-10
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 80I

…ble Calcutta High Court in IT Appeal No.458 of 2006 dated 05/01/2007, (f) Arun Excello Foundation Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT [ 108 TTJ 71 (Chen)], (g) G.V. Corporation Vs ITO [ 38 SOT 174( Mum)], (h) SJR Builder Vs ACIT [3 ITR (T) 569 (Bang)], (i) ITO Vs Air Developers [122 ITD 125(Nag)] (j) CIT Vs Global Reality [2005] 379 ITR 107 (MP). 7. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and have gone through the orders of the authorities below. During the assessment the assessing officer made reference to the department valuation officer (DVO) to ascertain the verification of the claim of the assessee for deduct…

SOHAM CONSTRUCTION,KALYAN vs. ITO WD 2(4), KALYAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 336/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Narendra Singh Janpangi
Section 80I

…ble Calcutta High Court in IT Appeal No 458 Of 2006 dated 05.01.2007; f. Arun Excello Foundation Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT [108 TTJ 71 (Chen)]; g. G.V. Corporation v. ITO [38 SOT 174 (Mum)]; h. SJR Builders v. ACIT [3 ITR(T) 569 (Bang)]; and i. ITO v. Air Developers [122 ITD 125 (Nag)]. 18. Ld. DR submitted before us that the residential units i.e. Flat Nos. 201-202; 501-502 and 602-603 are separate units and they are assessed separately by Municipal Authorities. Since all these flats are independent and separate units they cannot be treated as single residential units for 12 ITA.No.336/MUM/2016 (A.Y: 2012-13) ITA.No.16…

ITO WD 2(4), KALYAN vs. SOHAM CONSTUCTION, BADLAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 164/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Narendra Singh Janpangi
Section 80I

…ble Calcutta High Court in IT Appeal No 458 Of 2006 dated 05.01.2007; f. Arun Excello Foundation Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT [108 TTJ 71 (Chen)]; g. G.V. Corporation v. ITO [38 SOT 174 (Mum)]; h. SJR Builders v. ACIT [3 ITR(T) 569 (Bang)]; and i. ITO v. Air Developers [122 ITD 125 (Nag)]. 18. Ld. DR submitted before us that the residential units i.e. Flat Nos. 201-202; 501-502 and 602-603 are separate units and they are assessed separately by Municipal Authorities. Since all these flats are independent and separate units they cannot be treated as single residential units for 12 ITA.No.336/MUM/2016 (A.Y: 2012-13) ITA.No.16…

ITO, CHENNAI vs. A. JAGADEESWARI, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as the cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 245/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.245/Mds/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Vs Smt. A. Jagadeeswari, The Income Tax Officer, New No.40, Flat No.G-2. Non-Corporate Ward 3(1)(I/C) Jagannathapuram, Iii Street, Chennai – 34. Chetpet, Chennai – 600 031. Pan: Adhpj4253E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) C.O. No. 30/Mds/2017 (In I.T.A. No.245/Mds/2017) Smt. A. Jagadeeswari, Vs The Income Tax Officer, New No.40, Flat No.G-2. Non-Corporate Ward 3(1)(I/C) Jagannathapuram, Iii Street, Chennai – 34. Chetpet, Chennai – 600 031. Pan: Adhpj4253E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) राज" की ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. S. Vijayaprabha, Jcit : Shri T. Banusekar, Ca "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : 20.09.2017 सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2017 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: 20.09.2017For Respondent: Smt. S. Vijayaprabha, JCIT
Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)Section 80I

…nai in the case of ACIT v S.Muthu Palaniappan in ITA No. 1650/Mds/2012 dated 12.11.2013 has taken a similar view. Reliance is further placed on the decision of the Nagpur Bench of the Income tax Appellate Tribunal in Income tax Officer v AIR Developers [2010] 122 ITD 125 (Nag) where it was held that merely because for one project, the approval was taken more than once, it cannot be said that the assessee has developed six different housing projects and that the totality of the facts should be considered. If the project as a whole satisfied the conditions of Section 80-IB(1 0), the deduction could not be denied.…

M/S. SHIPRA ESTATE LTD. & JAI KRISHAN ESTATE PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is

ITA 5849/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2009-10 Ay: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Vidharthi, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…lly perused the relevant material placed on record. As far as ground no. 2 of the Department’s appeal is concerned, it is seen that the issue of pro rata deduction is covered in favour of the assessee by the following cases:- i) ITO vs Air Developers (2009) 122 ITD 125 (Nagpur) ii) SJR Builders vs ACIT 3 ITR (Trib) 569 (Bangalore) iii) Sreevatsa Real Estate (P) Ltd. 9 ITR (Trib) 808 (Chennai) In ITO vs Air Developers (supra), the Nagpur Bench held that:- “In view of the decision of the Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal in the case of (Bengal Ambuja Housing Development Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [IT Appeal No. 1595 (Kol.)…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SHIPRA ESTATE LTD., & JAI KRISHNA ESTATE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is

ITA 5614/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2009-10 Ay: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Vidharthi, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…lly perused the relevant material placed on record. As far as ground no. 2 of the Department’s appeal is concerned, it is seen that the issue of pro rata deduction is covered in favour of the assessee by the following cases:- i) ITO vs Air Developers (2009) 122 ITD 125 (Nagpur) ii) SJR Builders vs ACIT 3 ITR (Trib) 569 (Bangalore) iii) Sreevatsa Real Estate (P) Ltd. 9 ITR (Trib) 808 (Chennai) In ITO vs Air Developers (supra), the Nagpur Bench held that:- “In view of the decision of the Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal in the case of (Bengal Ambuja Housing Development Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [IT Appeal No. 1595 (Kol.)…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SHIPRA ESTATE LTD. & JAI KRISHAN ESTATE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is

ITA 1950/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2009-10 Ay: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Vidharthi, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…lly perused the relevant material placed on record. As far as ground no. 2 of the Department’s appeal is concerned, it is seen that the issue of pro rata deduction is covered in favour of the assessee by the following cases:- i) ITO vs Air Developers (2009) 122 ITD 125 (Nagpur) ii) SJR Builders vs ACIT 3 ITR (Trib) 569 (Bangalore) iii) Sreevatsa Real Estate (P) Ltd. 9 ITR (Trib) 808 (Chennai) In ITO vs Air Developers (supra), the Nagpur Bench held that:- “In view of the decision of the Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal in the case of (Bengal Ambuja Housing Development Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [IT Appeal No. 1595 (Kol.)…

NEELKANTH PALM REALTY,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 15(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7900/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Sanjay Aroraassessment Year:2008-09 M/S Neelkanth Palm Addl.Cit, Realty Fine House, Range-(15)(3), Anandji Lane, 5Th Floor, Matru Mandir, M.G. Road, Ghatkopar (E), Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400077 Mumbai ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaefn5224B

Section 143(3)Section 80I

…Vs. Sheth Developers (P) Ltd., 33 SOT 277 (Mum); iii) Viswas Promoters (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT, 255 CTR 149; iv) SJR Builders Vs. ACIT, ITA No.1192/B/2008, dtd.21.8.2009(Bang) v) Sanghvi & Doshi Enterprise Vs. ITO, 131 ITD 151(Chennai); vi) ITO Vs. AIR Developers, 122 ITD 125 (Nag); vii) DCIT Vs. Brigade Enterprises P. Ltd., 28 SOT 7 (Bang); viii) DCIT Vs. Parkway Development, ITA No.1419/Bang/2010, dtd.20-8- 10; ix) ACIT Vs. Bengal Ambuja Housing Development Ltd., ITA No.458/2006, dated. 5.1.2007 (Calcutta High Court). 6. On the other hand, learned DR relied on the order of lower authorities. 7. We have considered r…

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

…bunal are accordingly upheld and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed.” 12.13 Pro-rata deduction has similarly been held allowable in the following decisions: - Brigade Enterprises (P) Ltd.: [2009] 28-SOT-7 (Bang.) - ITO v. AIR Developers: [2010] 122 ITD 125 (Nag) - G.V. Corporation V. ITO: [2010] 38 SOT 174 (Mum.) - ACIT v. Sheth Developers (P.) Ltd.: [2009] 33-SOT-277 (Mum) - Prakruti Constructions (P) Ltd V. ITO: ITA No. 2264 & 2265/ Mum/ 2011 - Delhi Iron and Steel Pvt. Ltd in ITA No. 2497/ Del/ 2007 12.14 The Learned AR thus pointed out that the Hon’ble High Courts and various benches of the T…