Madras in CIT v. Arun Excello Foundation Pvt. Ltd.

86 DTR 99High Court#18435 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2022.

Judgments citing Madras in CIT v. Arun Excello Foundation Pvt. Ltd.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 8, PUNE vs. ASWANI DEVELOPERS, PUNE

ITA 576/PUN/2020[201213]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Sept 2022

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr.Dipak P.Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.576/Pun/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Aswani Developers, Income Tax, Circle-8, Pune Vs Second Floor, S.P. Heights, Mumbai-Pune Road, Kasarwadi, Pune 411 034 Pan : Aarfa0761H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकरअपीलसं. / It(Ss)A Nos.02 & 03/Pun/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Aswani Developers, Income Tax, Vs Second Floor, S.P. Heights, Central Circle-2(2), Pune Mumbai-Pune Road, Kasarwadi, Pune 411 034 Pan : Aarfa0761H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80I

…at two units allotted to spouses of individual being A8-302 and A2-103 had violated the conditions of section 80IB(10)(f) of the Act. He relied on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in CIT Vs. Arun Excello Foundation Pvt. Ltd. reported in 86 DTR 99 (Mad) and Vishwas Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT reported in 81 DTR 58 (Mad) and was of the view that the assessee was entitled to claim prorata deduction on the profits of balance project excluding two flats which were allotted to spouses of individuals. We are in conformity with the findings of CIT(A), where the violation of clause (f) of section 8…

DCIT- CIRCLE - 3 , MUMBAI vs. OMKAR BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS, THANE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 248/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.248/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Dcit Circle-3, Thane बिधम/ M/S. Omkar Builders & Room No.02, 6Th Floor, Developers Vs. Aashar It Park, B-Wing, A-1/54, Shah & Nahar Wagle Industrial Estate, Industrial Estate Sitaram Road No.16Z, Thane (W- Jadhav Marg, Lower Parel 400604. (W), Mumbai-400013. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabfo3908J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Jitendra Singh (Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21/01/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/02/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 08.10.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -02, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2014- 15. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Singh (AR)For Respondent: Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 801Section 801BSection 80I

…ns under section 80-IB(10) the assessee would be entitled to the relief on a proportionate basis. Para 15)" 8. Similar opinion has been held in the under mentioned cases. 1. G V Corporation Vs ITO 133 ITJ 178 2. CIT vs. Arun Excello Foundation Private Limited 86 DTR 99 3. CIT vs. Elegant Estates 79 Taxmann. com 397 (Madras) 4. ACIT vs. Ekta Sankalp Developers 53 Taxmann.com 75 (Mumbai Tribunal) 9. Following the ratio laid down by the aforesaid Courts, I hold that merely because the appellant had violated the provision of section 801B(10) of the Act in respect of 26 units which exceeded the area of one thousand s…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. NAMRATA DEVELOPERS,, PUNE

In the result, all appeals of Revenue and Cross Objections of assessee in assessment year 2011-12 are dismissed and Cross Objections of assessee in assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14 are allowed

ITA 1976/PUN/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Sept 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1974 To 1976/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri V.L. Jain
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…at two units allotted to spouses of individual being A8-302 and A2-103 had violated the conditions of section 80IB(10)(f) of the Act. He relied on the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in CIT Vs. Arun Excello Foundation Pvt. Ltd. reported in 86 DTR 99 (Mad) and Vishwas Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT reported in 81 DTR 58 (Mad) and was of the view that the assessee was entitled to claim prorata deduction on the profits of balance project excluding two flats which were allotted to spouses of individuals. We are in conformity with the findings of CIT(A), where the violation of clause (f) of section 8…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. NAMRATA DEVELOPERS,, PUNE

In the result, all appeals of Revenue and Cross Objections of assessee in assessment year 2011-12 are dismissed and Cross Objections of assessee in assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14 are allowed

ITA 1975/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1974 To 1976/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri V.L. Jain
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…at two units allotted to spouses of individual being A8-302 and A2-103 had violated the conditions of section 80IB(10)(f) of the Act. He relied on the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in CIT Vs. Arun Excello Foundation Pvt. Ltd. reported in 86 DTR 99 (Mad) and Vishwas Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT reported in 81 DTR 58 (Mad) and was of the view that the assessee was entitled to claim prorata deduction on the profits of balance project excluding two flats which were allotted to spouses of individuals. We are in conformity with the findings of CIT(A), where the violation of clause (f) of section 8…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. NAMRATA DEVELOPERS,, PUNE

In the result, all appeals of Revenue and Cross Objections of assessee in assessment year 2011-12 are dismissed and Cross Objections of assessee in assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14 are allowed

ITA 1974/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1974 To 1976/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri V.L. Jain
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…at two units allotted to spouses of individual being A8-302 and A2-103 had violated the conditions of section 80IB(10)(f) of the Act. He relied on the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in CIT Vs. Arun Excello Foundation Pvt. Ltd. reported in 86 DTR 99 (Mad) and Vishwas Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT reported in 81 DTR 58 (Mad) and was of the view that the assessee was entitled to claim prorata deduction on the profits of balance project excluding two flats which were allotted to spouses of individuals. We are in conformity with the findings of CIT(A), where the violation of clause (f) of section 8…

Madras in CIT v. Arun Excello Foundation Pvt. Ltd. (86 DTR 99) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax