M/s. Viswas Promoters Pvt Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT

373 ITR 317High Court2015#9757 most cited
11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 80IBSection 80IB(1)Section 80IB(10)Section 80IB(10)(b)

Issues it is cited on

section 80ib(10)section 80ibsection 80assistant commissionerbusinessinterest

Judgments citing M/s. Viswas Promoters Pvt Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT

ACIT, KOCHI vs. M/S SKYLINE BUILDERS, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 942/COCH/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.Sundarasan S, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Sri.P.M.Veeramani, CA
Section 801B(10)Section 80I

…01B(10) is satisfied and appellant is eligible for deduction." In support of its contention, the appellant has relied upon the following judicial pronouncements:- CIT Vs Vandana Properties [353 ITR 36 Bombay] CIT Vs. Voora property Developers Private Limited [373 ITR 317 Mad] 4.5 With regard to the above, it needs to be stated that the appellant has developed two projects on a plot of land extending 221.498 cents (2.2 acres). The provisions of section 801B(10) sub- section (b) which specifies the minimum area required for the project states that "the project is on the size of a plot of land which has minimum area…

ACIT, ERNAKULAM vs. M/S SKYLINE BUILDERS, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 928/COCH/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.Sundarasan S, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Sri.P.M.Veeramani, CA
Section 801B(10)Section 80I

…01B(10) is satisfied and appellant is eligible for deduction." In support of its contention, the appellant has relied upon the following judicial pronouncements:- CIT Vs Vandana Properties [353 ITR 36 Bombay] CIT Vs. Voora property Developers Private Limited [373 ITR 317 Mad] 4.5 With regard to the above, it needs to be stated that the appellant has developed two projects on a plot of land extending 221.498 cents (2.2 acres). The provisions of section 801B(10) sub- section (b) which specifies the minimum area required for the project states that "the project is on the size of a plot of land which has minimum area…

ACIT, ERNAKULAM vs. M/S SKYLINE BUILDERS, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 927/COCH/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.Sundarasan S, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Sri.P.M.Veeramani, CA
Section 801B(10)Section 80I

…01B(10) is satisfied and appellant is eligible for deduction." In support of its contention, the appellant has relied upon the following judicial pronouncements:- CIT Vs Vandana Properties [353 ITR 36 Bombay] CIT Vs. Voora property Developers Private Limited [373 ITR 317 Mad] 4.5 With regard to the above, it needs to be stated that the appellant has developed two projects on a plot of land extending 221.498 cents (2.2 acres). The provisions of section 801B(10) sub- section (b) which specifies the minimum area required for the project states that "the project is on the size of a plot of land which has minimum area…

ASST CIT 27(2), NAVI MUMBAI vs. MERIT MAGNUM CONSTRUCTION, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6657/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Sh. Paresh ShapariaFor Respondent: Sh. Mahiita Nair, CIT-DR
Section 292CSection 68Section 69CSection 801BSection 801B(10)Section 80I

…re. The said ratio decendi have been pronounced by various courts and reliance is placed on the said judgements: CIT Vandana Properties (2013) 333 ITR 36 (Bom) CIT Ackriti City Lad (2013) 31 axmann.com 275 (Bombay) CIT Voora Property Developers (P) Ltd (2013) 373 ITR 317 (Madras) Accordingly, even if the area for the building Iris & Jasmine' taken separately is 3998.66 sq. mt .and 1203.47 sq.mt. respectively is less than one acre, the appellant cannot be denied the deduction u/s 80-IB(10) of the IT Act, 1961 since the plot of land on which such a housing project is undertaken it on land having more than one acre.…

MANJEERA PROJECTS ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

ITA 15/HYD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Sri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, DR
Section 143(3)Section 5Section 80I

…1082 and 1230 Manjeera Projects Hyderabad. which are completed. For this proposition, he placed reliance upon the following decisions: i) ITO vs. Saket Corporation (2015) 62 Taxmann.com 38 (Guj.) ii) M/s. Viswas Promoters Pvt Ltd vs. Asstt. CIT reported in 373 ITR 317 (Mad.) iii) Siddhivinayak Kohinoor Venture vs. Addl. CIT (2014) 159 TTJ 0390 (Pune) iv) CIT vs. Vandana Properties (2013) 353 ITR 36 (Bom.) v) CIT vs. Voora Property Developers P Ltd (2015) 373 ITR 317 (Mad) vi) Pushkar Construction Co. Vs. ITO (2015) 43 ITR (Trib.) 293 (ITAT Ahd.) 8. On the issue of the completion of blocks F, K & L, he has…

MANJEERA PROJECTS ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

ITA 956/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Sri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, DR
Section 143(3)Section 5Section 80I

…1082 and 1230 Manjeera Projects Hyderabad. which are completed. For this proposition, he placed reliance upon the following decisions: i) ITO vs. Saket Corporation (2015) 62 Taxmann.com 38 (Guj.) ii) M/s. Viswas Promoters Pvt Ltd vs. Asstt. CIT reported in 373 ITR 317 (Mad.) iii) Siddhivinayak Kohinoor Venture vs. Addl. CIT (2014) 159 TTJ 0390 (Pune) iv) CIT vs. Vandana Properties (2013) 353 ITR 36 (Bom.) v) CIT vs. Voora Property Developers P Ltd (2015) 373 ITR 317 (Mad) vi) Pushkar Construction Co. Vs. ITO (2015) 43 ITR (Trib.) 293 (ITAT Ahd.) 8. On the issue of the completion of blocks F, K & L, he has…

MANJEERA PROJECTS ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

ITA 1554/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Sri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, DR
Section 143(3)Section 5Section 80I

…1082 and 1230 Manjeera Projects Hyderabad. which are completed. For this proposition, he placed reliance upon the following decisions: i) ITO vs. Saket Corporation (2015) 62 Taxmann.com 38 (Guj.) ii) M/s. Viswas Promoters Pvt Ltd vs. Asstt. CIT reported in 373 ITR 317 (Mad.) iii) Siddhivinayak Kohinoor Venture vs. Addl. CIT (2014) 159 TTJ 0390 (Pune) iv) CIT vs. Vandana Properties (2013) 353 ITR 36 (Bom.) v) CIT vs. Voora Property Developers P Ltd (2015) 373 ITR 317 (Mad) vi) Pushkar Construction Co. Vs. ITO (2015) 43 ITR (Trib.) 293 (ITAT Ahd.) 8. On the issue of the completion of blocks F, K & L, he has…

GRANDEUR HOMES PVT. LTD., SECUNDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 479/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmangrandeur Homes P Ltd Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Secunderabad Income Tax, Circle 2(2) Pan: Aaccg7612F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Shri K.J. Rao, DR
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…ding on minimum of one acre, as per the sanctioned plan and obtained the completion certificate, the assessee is entitled to deduction u/s 80IB(10). 26. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Voora Property Developers (P) Ltd reported in (2015) 373 ITR 317 (Mad) was considering the case of an assessee, who received approval of the local authority in respect of a composite housing scheme and had obtained separate plan permits for six blocks on one acre and 6.5 cents of land. The AO therein had denied the deduction u/s 80IB(10) on the ground that the assessee had developed six separate projects in on…

MANJEERA PROJECTS, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 1082/HYD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Dr. K. Srinivas Reddy, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 80Section 801B(10)Section 80I

…4 1082 and 1230 Manjeera Projects Hyderabad. which are completed. For this proposition, he placed reliance upon the following decisions: i) ITO vs. Saket Corporation (2015) 62 Taxmann.com 38 (Guj.) ii) M/s. Viswas Promoters Pvt Ltd vs. Asstt. CIT reported in 373 ITR 317 (Mad.) iii) Siddhivinayak Kohinoor Venture vs. Addl. CIT (2014) 159 TTJ 0390 (Pune) iv) CIT vs. Vandana Properties (2013) 353 ITR 36 (Bom.) v) CIT vs. Voora Property Developers P Ltd (2015) 373 ITR 317 (Mad) vi) Pushkar Construction Co. Vs. ITO (2015) 43 ITR (Trib.) 293 (ITAT Ahd.) 8. On the issue of the completion of blocks F, K & L, he has dra…

MANJEERA PROJECTS, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-6(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 1230/HYD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Dr. K. Srinivas Reddy, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 80Section 801B(10)Section 80I

…4 1082 and 1230 Manjeera Projects Hyderabad. which are completed. For this proposition, he placed reliance upon the following decisions: i) ITO vs. Saket Corporation (2015) 62 Taxmann.com 38 (Guj.) ii) M/s. Viswas Promoters Pvt Ltd vs. Asstt. CIT reported in 373 ITR 317 (Mad.) iii) Siddhivinayak Kohinoor Venture vs. Addl. CIT (2014) 159 TTJ 0390 (Pune) iv) CIT vs. Vandana Properties (2013) 353 ITR 36 (Bom.) v) CIT vs. Voora Property Developers P Ltd (2015) 373 ITR 317 (Mad) vi) Pushkar Construction Co. Vs. ITO (2015) 43 ITR (Trib.) 293 (ITAT Ahd.) 8. On the issue of the completion of blocks F, K & L, he has dra…

MANJEERA PROJECTS,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-6(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 1704/HYD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Dr. K. Srinivas Reddy, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 80Section 801B(10)Section 80I

…4 1082 and 1230 Manjeera Projects Hyderabad. which are completed. For this proposition, he placed reliance upon the following decisions: i) ITO vs. Saket Corporation (2015) 62 Taxmann.com 38 (Guj.) ii) M/s. Viswas Promoters Pvt Ltd vs. Asstt. CIT reported in 373 ITR 317 (Mad.) iii) Siddhivinayak Kohinoor Venture vs. Addl. CIT (2014) 159 TTJ 0390 (Pune) iv) CIT vs. Vandana Properties (2013) 353 ITR 36 (Bom.) v) CIT vs. Voora Property Developers P Ltd (2015) 373 ITR 317 (Mad) vi) Pushkar Construction Co. Vs. ITO (2015) 43 ITR (Trib.) 293 (ITAT Ahd.) 8. On the issue of the completion of blocks F, K & L, he has dra…

M/s. Viswas Promoters Pvt Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT (373 ITR 317) — Cited in 11 Judgments | BharatTax