Karamshibhai M Thumar (HUF) v. ITO

Karnataka Housing Board, Bangalore vs. DDIT, Bangalore

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Karnataka Housing The Additional Board, Director Of Income Iii Floor, Cauvery Bhavan, Tax (Exemptions), Kempegowda Road, Range – 17, Bangalore – 560009. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaajk0398K Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Karnataka Housing The Additional Board, Director Of Income Iii Floor, Cauvery Bhavan, Tax (Exemptions), Kempegowda Road, Range – 17, Bangalore – 560009. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaajk0398K Appellant Respondent

…handra Gupta [1988] 173 ITR 407 (Raj)  Sri Nath Suresh Chand Ram Naresh v. CIT [2006] 280 ITR 396 (All)  CIT v Ram Das Deokinandan Prasad (HUF) [2005] 277 ITR 197 (All)  Karamshibhai M Thumar (HUF) v ITO 12 DTR 534 (Ahd 'Tri)  Suraj Mal (HUF) v ITO (2007) 110 TTJ 834 (Del TM) 1.5 In view of the above, the order passed under section 143(3) is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 2.Proviso to section 2(15) is not applicable:- [Ground No. 4, 4.1 & 4.21 2.1 Housing is a basic necessity for all human beings. It is the duty of the State to raise the level of nutrition, the standard of living and to improve public h…

Karnataka Housing Board vs. Addl.DIT

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Karnataka Housing The Additional Board, Director Of Income Iii Floor, Cauvery Bhavan, Tax (Exemptions), Kempegowda Road, Range – 17, Bangalore – 560009. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaajk0398K Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Karnataka Housing The Additional Board, Director Of Income Iii Floor, Cauvery Bhavan, Tax (Exemptions), Kempegowda Road, Range – 17, Bangalore – 560009. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaajk0398K Appellant Respondent

…handra Gupta [1988] 173 ITR 407 (Raj)  Sri Nath Suresh Chand Ram Naresh v. CIT [2006] 280 ITR 396 (All)  CIT v Ram Das Deokinandan Prasad (HUF) [2005] 277 ITR 197 (All)  Karamshibhai M Thumar (HUF) v ITO 12 DTR 534 (Ahd 'Tri)  Suraj Mal (HUF) v ITO (2007) 110 TTJ 834 (Del TM) 1.5 In view of the above, the order passed under section 143(3) is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 2.Proviso to section 2(15) is not applicable:- [Ground No. 4, 4.1 & 4.21 2.1 Housing is a basic necessity for all human beings. It is the duty of the State to raise the level of nutrition, the standard of living and to improve public h…

Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board vs. Addl.DIT

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year : 2009-10

…ndra Gupta [1988] 173 ITR 407 (Raj) • Sri Nath Suresh Chand Ram Naresh v. CIT [2006] 280 ITR 396 (All) • CIT v. Ram Das Deokinandan Prasad (HUF) [2005] 277 ITR 197 (All)) • Karamshibhai M Thumar (HUF) v ITO, 12 DTR 534 (Ahd Tri) • Suraj Mal (HUF) v ITO (2007) 110 TTJ 834 (Del TM) 15. It was submitted that in view of the above, the order passed u/s. 143(3) is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 16. The next submission of the learned counsel for the Assessee was on the applicability of the proviso to Sec.2(15) of the Act to the Assessee. It was submitted that the development of industries is the duty of the Stat…