Models Construction Pvt Ltd. v. DCIT

429 ITR 605High Court#10881 most cited
10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2023.

Issues it is cited on

section 80ib(10)tax benefitsection 80ibsection 80isection 80section 11section 147section 143prescribedcompanysection 14section 143(3)

Judgments citing Models Construction Pvt Ltd. v. DCIT

DCIT CENTRAL-CIRCLE-2(4), MUMBAI vs. KEYSTONE REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1946/MUM/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

…e of Mettur Chemical & Industrial Corporation Ltd vs CIT (1996) 86 Taxmann 157 (SC). 11. On the other hand, the Ld.Counsel supported the order of Ld.CIT(A) and relied on the order of jurisdictional High Court in the case of Models Construction Pvt Ltd vs DCIT 429 ITR 605 (Bom). 12. Heard both sides and perused the materials on record. Without reiterating the facts elaborated above, the Ld.CIT(A) has allowed the claim of deduction under section 80IB(10) on prorate basis after following the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs Arun Excello Foundations P Ltd (2013) 259 CTR (Mad) 362 and after…

KEYSTONE REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3003/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

…e of Mettur Chemical & Industrial Corporation Ltd vs CIT (1996) 86 Taxmann 157 (SC). 11. On the other hand, the Ld.Counsel supported the order of Ld.CIT(A) and relied on the order of jurisdictional High Court in the case of Models Construction Pvt Ltd vs DCIT 429 ITR 605 (Bom). 12. Heard both sides and perused the materials on record. Without reiterating the facts elaborated above, the Ld.CIT(A) has allowed the claim of deduction under section 80IB(10) on prorate basis after following the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs Arun Excello Foundations P Ltd (2013) 259 CTR (Mad) 362 and after…

JT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) - CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S KEYSTONE REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2822/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

…e of Mettur Chemical & Industrial Corporation Ltd vs CIT (1996) 86 Taxmann 157 (SC). 11. On the other hand, the Ld.Counsel supported the order of Ld.CIT(A) and relied on the order of jurisdictional High Court in the case of Models Construction Pvt Ltd vs DCIT 429 ITR 605 (Bom). 12. Heard both sides and perused the materials on record. Without reiterating the facts elaborated above, the Ld.CIT(A) has allowed the claim of deduction under section 80IB(10) on prorate basis after following the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs Arun Excello Foundations P Ltd (2013) 259 CTR (Mad) 362 and after…

DCIT CEN CIR 10, MUMBAI vs. KEYSTONE REALTORS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5631/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

…e of Mettur Chemical & Industrial Corporation Ltd vs CIT (1996) 86 Taxmann 157 (SC). 11. On the other hand, the Ld.Counsel supported the order of Ld.CIT(A) and relied on the order of jurisdictional High Court in the case of Models Construction Pvt Ltd vs DCIT 429 ITR 605 (Bom). 12. Heard both sides and perused the materials on record. Without reiterating the facts elaborated above, the Ld.CIT(A) has allowed the claim of deduction under section 80IB(10) on prorate basis after following the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs Arun Excello Foundations P Ltd (2013) 259 CTR (Mad) 362 and after…

ASST CIT 28(1) , NAVI MUMBAI vs. BHARAT TUKARAM BHOR , NAVI MUMBAI

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 897/MUM/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 895/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Bharat Tukaram Bhor Acit–28(1), बिधम/ 218/219, Raheja Arcade, R. No. 306, 3Rd Floor, 6Th Sector- 11, Cbd Belapur, Tower, Vashi Rly Station Vs. Navi Mumbai- 400 614 Complex, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 703 (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 288/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ito 28(1)(2), Bharat Tukaram Bhor Pro. M/S Jai Gurudeo Bldr Tower No. 6 Flr Vashi Rly बिधम/ & Developers, 218/219, Station Complex, Navi Vs. Raheja Arcade, Sector-11, Mumbai- 400 703 Cbd Belapur, Navi Mumbai- 400 614 (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 287/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Bharat Tukaram Bhor Addlcit Rg 22(3), Pro. M/S Jai Gurudeo Bldr Tower No. 6, 3Rd Flr Vashi बिधम/ & Developers, 218/219, Rly Station Complex, Vashi, Vs. Raheja Arcade, Sector-11, Navi Mumbai-400 703 Cbd Belapur, Navi Mumbai- 400 614 (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 80I

…fied. In support of this preposition learned counsel relied upon the following judgments of the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court: (i) Devashri Nirmann LLP-vs-ACIT, 429 ITR 597 (Bom)(2020)/ 124 tanmann.com 125 (Bombay)(2021) (ii) Models Construction (P) Ltd.-vs-DCIT, 429 ITR 605 (Bom)(2020)/ 124 taxmann.com 362 (Bombay)(2021) (iii) Kamat Construction (P) Ltd.-vs-ACIT, 429 ITR 609 (Bom)(2020)/ 124 taxmann.com 362 (Bombay)(2021) (iv) CIT-vs-Aakash Nidhi Builders & Developers, 76 taxmann.com 73 (Bom)(2016) (v) Vishwas Promotors (P) Ltd.-vs-ACIT, 255 CTR 149 (Mad) 14. On the other hand, learned DR has given his written state…

ASST CIT 28(1), NAVI MUMBAI vs. BHARAT TUKARAM BHOR, NAVI MUMBAI

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 896/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 895/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Bharat Tukaram Bhor Acit–28(1), बिधम/ 218/219, Raheja Arcade, R. No. 306, 3Rd Floor, 6Th Sector- 11, Cbd Belapur, Tower, Vashi Rly Station Vs. Navi Mumbai- 400 614 Complex, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 703 (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 288/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ito 28(1)(2), Bharat Tukaram Bhor Pro. M/S Jai Gurudeo Bldr Tower No. 6 Flr Vashi Rly बिधम/ & Developers, 218/219, Station Complex, Navi Vs. Raheja Arcade, Sector-11, Mumbai- 400 703 Cbd Belapur, Navi Mumbai- 400 614 (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 287/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Bharat Tukaram Bhor Addlcit Rg 22(3), Pro. M/S Jai Gurudeo Bldr Tower No. 6, 3Rd Flr Vashi बिधम/ & Developers, 218/219, Rly Station Complex, Vashi, Vs. Raheja Arcade, Sector-11, Navi Mumbai-400 703 Cbd Belapur, Navi Mumbai- 400 614 (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 80I

…fied. In support of this preposition learned counsel relied upon the following judgments of the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court: (i) Devashri Nirmann LLP-vs-ACIT, 429 ITR 597 (Bom)(2020)/ 124 tanmann.com 125 (Bombay)(2021) (ii) Models Construction (P) Ltd.-vs-DCIT, 429 ITR 605 (Bom)(2020)/ 124 taxmann.com 362 (Bombay)(2021) (iii) Kamat Construction (P) Ltd.-vs-ACIT, 429 ITR 609 (Bom)(2020)/ 124 taxmann.com 362 (Bombay)(2021) (iv) CIT-vs-Aakash Nidhi Builders & Developers, 76 taxmann.com 73 (Bom)(2016) (v) Vishwas Promotors (P) Ltd.-vs-ACIT, 255 CTR 149 (Mad) 14. On the other hand, learned DR has given his written state…

ASST CIT 28(1), NAVI MUMBAI vs. BHARAT TUKARAM BHOR, NAVI MUMBAI

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 895/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 895/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Bharat Tukaram Bhor Acit–28(1), बिधम/ 218/219, Raheja Arcade, R. No. 306, 3Rd Floor, 6Th Sector- 11, Cbd Belapur, Tower, Vashi Rly Station Vs. Navi Mumbai- 400 614 Complex, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 703 (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 288/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ito 28(1)(2), Bharat Tukaram Bhor Pro. M/S Jai Gurudeo Bldr Tower No. 6 Flr Vashi Rly बिधम/ & Developers, 218/219, Station Complex, Navi Vs. Raheja Arcade, Sector-11, Mumbai- 400 703 Cbd Belapur, Navi Mumbai- 400 614 (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 287/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Bharat Tukaram Bhor Addlcit Rg 22(3), Pro. M/S Jai Gurudeo Bldr Tower No. 6, 3Rd Flr Vashi बिधम/ & Developers, 218/219, Rly Station Complex, Vashi, Vs. Raheja Arcade, Sector-11, Navi Mumbai-400 703 Cbd Belapur, Navi Mumbai- 400 614 (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 80I

…fied. In support of this preposition learned counsel relied upon the following judgments of the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court: (i) Devashri Nirmann LLP-vs-ACIT, 429 ITR 597 (Bom)(2020)/ 124 tanmann.com 125 (Bombay)(2021) (ii) Models Construction (P) Ltd.-vs-DCIT, 429 ITR 605 (Bom)(2020)/ 124 taxmann.com 362 (Bombay)(2021) (iii) Kamat Construction (P) Ltd.-vs-ACIT, 429 ITR 609 (Bom)(2020)/ 124 taxmann.com 362 (Bombay)(2021) (iv) CIT-vs-Aakash Nidhi Builders & Developers, 76 taxmann.com 73 (Bom)(2016) (v) Vishwas Promotors (P) Ltd.-vs-ACIT, 255 CTR 149 (Mad) 14. On the other hand, learned DR has given his written state…

BHARAT TULARAM BHOIR,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT 28 (1), MUMBAI

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 289/MUM/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 895/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Bharat Tukaram Bhor Acit–28(1), बिधम/ 218/219, Raheja Arcade, R. No. 306, 3Rd Floor, 6Th Sector- 11, Cbd Belapur, Tower, Vashi Rly Station Vs. Navi Mumbai- 400 614 Complex, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 703 (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 288/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ito 28(1)(2), Bharat Tukaram Bhor Pro. M/S Jai Gurudeo Bldr Tower No. 6 Flr Vashi Rly बिधम/ & Developers, 218/219, Station Complex, Navi Vs. Raheja Arcade, Sector-11, Mumbai- 400 703 Cbd Belapur, Navi Mumbai- 400 614 (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 287/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Bharat Tukaram Bhor Addlcit Rg 22(3), Pro. M/S Jai Gurudeo Bldr Tower No. 6, 3Rd Flr Vashi बिधम/ & Developers, 218/219, Rly Station Complex, Vashi, Vs. Raheja Arcade, Sector-11, Navi Mumbai-400 703 Cbd Belapur, Navi Mumbai- 400 614 (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 80I

…fied. In support of this preposition learned counsel relied upon the following judgments of the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court: (i) Devashri Nirmann LLP-vs-ACIT, 429 ITR 597 (Bom)(2020)/ 124 tanmann.com 125 (Bombay)(2021) (ii) Models Construction (P) Ltd.-vs-DCIT, 429 ITR 605 (Bom)(2020)/ 124 taxmann.com 362 (Bombay)(2021) (iii) Kamat Construction (P) Ltd.-vs-ACIT, 429 ITR 609 (Bom)(2020)/ 124 taxmann.com 362 (Bombay)(2021) (iv) CIT-vs-Aakash Nidhi Builders & Developers, 76 taxmann.com 73 (Bom)(2016) (v) Vishwas Promotors (P) Ltd.-vs-ACIT, 255 CTR 149 (Mad) 14. On the other hand, learned DR has given his written state…

BHARAT TUKARAM BHOIR,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO 28 (1)92), MUMBAI

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 288/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 895/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Bharat Tukaram Bhor Acit–28(1), बिधम/ 218/219, Raheja Arcade, R. No. 306, 3Rd Floor, 6Th Sector- 11, Cbd Belapur, Tower, Vashi Rly Station Vs. Navi Mumbai- 400 614 Complex, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 703 (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 288/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ito 28(1)(2), Bharat Tukaram Bhor Pro. M/S Jai Gurudeo Bldr Tower No. 6 Flr Vashi Rly बिधम/ & Developers, 218/219, Station Complex, Navi Vs. Raheja Arcade, Sector-11, Mumbai- 400 703 Cbd Belapur, Navi Mumbai- 400 614 (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 287/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Bharat Tukaram Bhor Addlcit Rg 22(3), Pro. M/S Jai Gurudeo Bldr Tower No. 6, 3Rd Flr Vashi बिधम/ & Developers, 218/219, Rly Station Complex, Vashi, Vs. Raheja Arcade, Sector-11, Navi Mumbai-400 703 Cbd Belapur, Navi Mumbai- 400 614 (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 80I

…fied. In support of this preposition learned counsel relied upon the following judgments of the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court: (i) Devashri Nirmann LLP-vs-ACIT, 429 ITR 597 (Bom)(2020)/ 124 tanmann.com 125 (Bombay)(2021) (ii) Models Construction (P) Ltd.-vs-DCIT, 429 ITR 605 (Bom)(2020)/ 124 taxmann.com 362 (Bombay)(2021) (iii) Kamat Construction (P) Ltd.-vs-ACIT, 429 ITR 609 (Bom)(2020)/ 124 taxmann.com 362 (Bombay)(2021) (iv) CIT-vs-Aakash Nidhi Builders & Developers, 76 taxmann.com 73 (Bom)(2016) (v) Vishwas Promotors (P) Ltd.-vs-ACIT, 255 CTR 149 (Mad) 14. On the other hand, learned DR has given his written state…

BHARAT TUKARAM BHOIR,MUMBAI vs. ADDLCIT RG 22 (3), MUMBAI

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 287/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 895/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Bharat Tukaram Bhor Acit–28(1), बिधम/ 218/219, Raheja Arcade, R. No. 306, 3Rd Floor, 6Th Sector- 11, Cbd Belapur, Tower, Vashi Rly Station Vs. Navi Mumbai- 400 614 Complex, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 703 (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 288/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ito 28(1)(2), Bharat Tukaram Bhor Pro. M/S Jai Gurudeo Bldr Tower No. 6 Flr Vashi Rly बिधम/ & Developers, 218/219, Station Complex, Navi Vs. Raheja Arcade, Sector-11, Mumbai- 400 703 Cbd Belapur, Navi Mumbai- 400 614 (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 287/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Bharat Tukaram Bhor Addlcit Rg 22(3), Pro. M/S Jai Gurudeo Bldr Tower No. 6, 3Rd Flr Vashi बिधम/ & Developers, 218/219, Rly Station Complex, Vashi, Vs. Raheja Arcade, Sector-11, Navi Mumbai-400 703 Cbd Belapur, Navi Mumbai- 400 614 (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 80I

…fied. In support of this preposition learned counsel relied upon the following judgments of the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court: (i) Devashri Nirmann LLP-vs-ACIT, 429 ITR 597 (Bom)(2020)/ 124 tanmann.com 125 (Bombay)(2021) (ii) Models Construction (P) Ltd.-vs-DCIT, 429 ITR 605 (Bom)(2020)/ 124 taxmann.com 362 (Bombay)(2021) (iii) Kamat Construction (P) Ltd.-vs-ACIT, 429 ITR 609 (Bom)(2020)/ 124 taxmann.com 362 (Bombay)(2021) (iv) CIT-vs-Aakash Nidhi Builders & Developers, 76 taxmann.com 73 (Bom)(2016) (v) Vishwas Promotors (P) Ltd.-vs-ACIT, 255 CTR 149 (Mad) 14. On the other hand, learned DR has given his written state…