ITO v. Asha Kashiparasad Ringsingha Pandurang Sadan

56 SOT 340Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2013#25266 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2019.

Judgments citing ITO v. Asha Kashiparasad Ringsingha Pandurang Sadan

Bhavya Construction Co., Mumbai vs. ACIT - 25(2), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3691/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Itas No. 3690 & 3691/Mum/2018 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2006-07 & 2007-08) M/S Bhavya Construction The Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Co. 25(2), Patyakshkar Bhavan, C11, 4, Bhide Bungalows, 37-A, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra, M.G. Road, Vile Parle Mumbai-400 051 (East), Mumbai-400 057 (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) स्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aaafb1375K अपीलाथी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri Dr. K Shivaram, Sr. Advocate Ms. Neelam Co Jadav, Ars प्रत्यथी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh, Cit Dr ुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13.08.2019 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2019 Aadosa / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Dr. K Shivaram, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri
Section 143(3)Section 247Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…he learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) 37 erred in facts and in law in not appreciating that the Mumbai Tribunal, in the case Ramesh Gunshi Dedhia v. ITO (2014) 148 ITD 356 and in the case of ITO v. Asha Kashiparasad Ringsingha Pandurang Sadan (2013) 56 SOT 340, on similar issue involving claim of deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act had granted relief to the assessee.” 3. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of construction of residential building and selling them. During the previous year relevant to AY 2006-07, the assessee had constructed th…

Bhavya Construction Co., Mumbai vs. ACIT 25(2), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3690/MUM/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Itas No. 3690 & 3691/Mum/2018 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2006-07 & 2007-08) M/S Bhavya Construction The Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Co. 25(2), Patyakshkar Bhavan, C11, 4, Bhide Bungalows, 37-A, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra, M.G. Road, Vile Parle Mumbai-400 051 (East), Mumbai-400 057 (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) स्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aaafb1375K अपीलाथी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri Dr. K Shivaram, Sr. Advocate Ms. Neelam Co Jadav, Ars प्रत्यथी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh, Cit Dr ुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13.08.2019 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2019 Aadosa / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Dr. K Shivaram, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri
Section 143(3)Section 247Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…he learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) 37 erred in facts and in law in not appreciating that the Mumbai Tribunal, in the case Ramesh Gunshi Dedhia v. ITO (2014) 148 ITD 356 and in the case of ITO v. Asha Kashiparasad Ringsingha Pandurang Sadan (2013) 56 SOT 340, on similar issue involving claim of deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act had granted relief to the assessee.” 3. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of construction of residential building and selling them. During the previous year relevant to AY 2006-07, the assessee had constructed th…

Rupvakula Properites P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 10(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7520/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Dharan GandhiFor Respondent: Shri B.S. Bist
Section 80I

…section 80IB(10), hence, the condition / restriction imposed under clause (a) and (b) of section 80IB(10) would not apply. For such proposition, he relied upon the following decisions:– 6 Rupvakula Properties Pvt. Ltd. i) ITO v/s Asha Kashi Prasad Ringshia, 56 SOT 340 (Mum.); and ii) Ramesh Gunshi Dedhia v/s ITO, 148 ITD 346. 5. The learned Authorised Representative submitted, though, assessee’s project consisted of eleven buildings, however, local authority has issued commencement certificate for each building separately. He, therefore, submitted that each building in a larger housing project would by itself c…

ITO v. Asha Kashiparasad Ringsingha Pandurang Sadan (56 SOT 340) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax