ITO v. Kasturi

54 SOT 384Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2012#25375 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2022.

Judgments citing ITO v. Kasturi

SHIRISH M DALVI,KALYAN vs. DCIT CIR 29(3), MUMBAI

Accordingly, we uphold the finding of Ld CIT(A). The ground No. four of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly dismissed

ITA 4640/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shirish M. Dalvi, Dcit Circle-23(3), D’ Block, 1St Floor, Zojwala 3Rd Floor, C-10, Pratyaksha Vs. Complex, Sahajanand Kar Bhavan, Bandra East, Chowk, Kalyan-421 301. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadpd 0358 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit Circle-23(3), Shirish M. Dalvi, Room No. 402, 4Th Floor, C-10 D’ Block, 1St Floor, Zojwala Vs. Bldg., Pratyakshakar Complex, Sahajanand Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Chowk, Kalyan-421 301. Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadpd 0358 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shirish M. Dalvi, Dcit-29(3), D’ Block, 1St Floor, Zojwala Room No. 402, 4Th Floor, C- Vs. Complex, Sahajanand 10, Pratyaksha Kar Chowk, Kalyan-421 301. Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra, Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadpd 0358 H

…ay Premises P Ltd reported in (2012) 27 taxman.com 149 (Mum). (ii) Tribunal Pune bench in the case of ITO Vs AV Bhatt developers reported in 145 ITD 305(Pune) Shirish M. Dalvi (iii) Tribunal Mumbai bench in the case of ITO Vs Kasturi construction reported in 54 SOT 384 (iv) Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vandana properties reported in 353 ITR 36. 28.3 In respect of the second reasoning given by the assessing officer for disallowance of deduction under section 80 IB, the Ld. Counsel the assesseesubmitted that from reading of explanation to section 80IB(10), it is evident that date of approval of the bui…

DCIT CIR 23(3), MUMBAI vs. SHIRISH M DALVI, MUMBAI

Accordingly, we uphold the finding of Ld CIT(A). The ground No. four of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly dismissed

ITA 4317/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shirish M. Dalvi, Dcit Circle-23(3), D’ Block, 1St Floor, Zojwala 3Rd Floor, C-10, Pratyaksha Vs. Complex, Sahajanand Kar Bhavan, Bandra East, Chowk, Kalyan-421 301. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadpd 0358 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit Circle-23(3), Shirish M. Dalvi, Room No. 402, 4Th Floor, C-10 D’ Block, 1St Floor, Zojwala Vs. Bldg., Pratyakshakar Complex, Sahajanand Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Chowk, Kalyan-421 301. Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadpd 0358 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shirish M. Dalvi, Dcit-29(3), D’ Block, 1St Floor, Zojwala Room No. 402, 4Th Floor, C- Vs. Complex, Sahajanand 10, Pratyaksha Kar Chowk, Kalyan-421 301. Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra, Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadpd 0358 H

…ay Premises P Ltd reported in (2012) 27 taxman.com 149 (Mum). (ii) Tribunal Pune bench in the case of ITO Vs AV Bhatt developers reported in 145 ITD 305(Pune) Shirish M. Dalvi (iii) Tribunal Mumbai bench in the case of ITO Vs Kasturi construction reported in 54 SOT 384 (iv) Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vandana properties reported in 353 ITR 36. 28.3 In respect of the second reasoning given by the assessing officer for disallowance of deduction under section 80 IB, the Ld. Counsel the assesseesubmitted that from reading of explanation to section 80IB(10), it is evident that date of approval of the bui…

SUMERMAL PUKHRAJ SHANKLESHA,KALYAN vs. ITO 3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7563/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasiaassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Sumermal Pukhraj Income Tax Officer 3(4), Shanklesha, Kalyan Prop. Of M/S. M.M. Shanklesha Jwellers, Vs. Narayan Wadi, Station Road, Kalyan (West)-421 301 Pan: Aonps9463C (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Ajay R. Singh, A.R. Revenue By : Miss N. Hemalatha, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 31.07.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2017 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh, A.RFor Respondent: Miss N. Hemalatha, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147

…8/- only.” 3 M/s. Sumermal Pukhraj Shanklesha 4. The assessee is in appeal before me. During the course of hearing, the Ld. A.R. submitted that the issue in controversy is covered by the decision of Tribunal in the case of ITO vs. Kasturi Construction (2012) 54 SOT 384. The Ld. A.R. submitted that issue may be restored to the file of AO to decide it afresh. 5. Ld. D.R. has no objection. 6. I, therefore, restore the matter back to the file of AO to decide it afresh as per the decision. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 29.08.2017. (D.T. Garasia) JU…

ITO v. Kasturi (54 SOT 384) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax