Mudhit Madanlal Gupta v. ACIT

51 DTR 217Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2011#4907 most cited

What is Mudhit Madanlal Gupta v. ACIT authority for?

An assessment order, when subjected to revision proceedings under section 263, can be decided in favour of the assessee based on various precedents, including the principles discussed in Mudhit Madanlal Gupta vs ACIT.

24

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Mudhit Madanlal Gupta · ACIT · 51 DTR 217 · revision proceedings · section 263 · Siddhi Real Estate Developers · CIT · assessee favourable decision · assessment order revision

Also reported as

141 ITD 682

Issues it is cited on

section 41(1)(a)section 94section 38section 43(1)section 80hadditional depreciationsection 80hhcsection 80hhtax benefitblock of assetssection 41(1)put to use

Judgments citing Mudhit Madanlal Gupta v. ACIT

Balaji Powertronics, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 43(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2743/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Balaji Powertronics, Vs. Dcit, Circle-43(1), H-56, Udyog Nagar, New Delhi Main Rohtak Road, Delhi – 1100 41 Pan :Aagfb0501M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 270ASection 80Section 928A

…e hands of recipient whether revenue or capital would have to be determined by having regard to the purpose for which the subsidy was given. 2.4 Reference in this regard is also invited to the decision in the case of Shree Balaji Alloys & Ors. Vs. CIT & Ors. (51 DTR 217) wherein the Hon'ble Jammu and Kashmir High Court by applying the principle of purposive test as laid down in the case of Sahney Steel (supra) and Ponni Sugars (supra) held that Excise Duty refund, interest subsidy and insurance subsidy received with the object of creating avenues for perpetual employment, to eradicate the social problem of unempl…

Everest Industries Ltd., Noida vs. Dy CIT Circle- 1, Thane

In the result, appeals of the Revenue as well appeals of the In the result, appeals of the Revenue as well appeals of the In the result, appeals of the Revenue as well appeals of the assessee are a...

ITA 720/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Thar/For Respondent: Mr. Biswanath Das, CIT-DR/

…by taking strength from the Judgment of Hon’ble the Judgment of Hon’ble Jammu & Kashmir High Court in the case of Shree Balaii Jammu & Kashmir High Court in the case of Shree Balaii Jammu & Kashmir High Court in the case of Shree Balaii Alloys vs.- CIT (2011) 51 DTR 217 (J&K) which has been CIT (2011) 51 DTR 217 (J&K) which has been CIT (2011) 51 DTR 217 (J&K) which has been affirmed by Hon'ble Apex Court vide Civil appeal No. 10061 affirmed by Hon'ble Apex Court vide Civil appeal No. 10061 affirmed by Hon'ble Apex Court vide Civil appeal No. 10061 of 2011 dated 19 of 2011 dated 19-04-2016. Further the Hon’ble Ja…

Everest Industries Ltd., Noida vs. Dy CIT Circle- 1, Thane

In the result, appeals of the Revenue as well appeals of the In the result, appeals of the Revenue as well appeals of the In the result, appeals of the Revenue as well appeals of the assessee are a...

ITA 719/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Thar/For Respondent: Mr. Biswanath Das, CIT-DR/

…by taking strength from the Judgment of Hon’ble the Judgment of Hon’ble Jammu & Kashmir High Court in the case of Shree Balaii Jammu & Kashmir High Court in the case of Shree Balaii Jammu & Kashmir High Court in the case of Shree Balaii Alloys vs.- CIT (2011) 51 DTR 217 (J&K) which has been CIT (2011) 51 DTR 217 (J&K) which has been CIT (2011) 51 DTR 217 (J&K) which has been affirmed by Hon'ble Apex Court vide Civil appeal No. 10061 affirmed by Hon'ble Apex Court vide Civil appeal No. 10061 affirmed by Hon'ble Apex Court vide Civil appeal No. 10061 of 2011 dated 19 of 2011 dated 19-04-2016. Further the Hon’ble Ja…

DCIT Circle-1, Thane vs. M/S Everest Industries Ltd., Delhi

In the result, appeals of the Revenue as well appeals of the In the result, appeals of the Revenue as well appeals of the In the result, appeals of the Revenue as well appeals of the assessee are a...

ITA 652/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Thar/For Respondent: Mr. Biswanath Das, CIT-DR/

…by taking strength from the Judgment of Hon’ble the Judgment of Hon’ble Jammu & Kashmir High Court in the case of Shree Balaii Jammu & Kashmir High Court in the case of Shree Balaii Jammu & Kashmir High Court in the case of Shree Balaii Alloys vs.- CIT (2011) 51 DTR 217 (J&K) which has been CIT (2011) 51 DTR 217 (J&K) which has been CIT (2011) 51 DTR 217 (J&K) which has been affirmed by Hon'ble Apex Court vide Civil appeal No. 10061 affirmed by Hon'ble Apex Court vide Civil appeal No. 10061 affirmed by Hon'ble Apex Court vide Civil appeal No. 10061 of 2011 dated 19 of 2011 dated 19-04-2016. Further the Hon’ble Ja…

DCIT, Circle-1, Thane vs. Everest Industries Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue as well appeals of the In the result, appeals of the Revenue as well appeals of the In the result, appeals of the Revenue as well appeals of the assessee are a...

ITA 1424/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Thar/For Respondent: Mr. Biswanath Das, CIT-DR/

…by taking strength from the Judgment of Hon’ble the Judgment of Hon’ble Jammu & Kashmir High Court in the case of Shree Balaii Jammu & Kashmir High Court in the case of Shree Balaii Jammu & Kashmir High Court in the case of Shree Balaii Alloys vs.- CIT (2011) 51 DTR 217 (J&K) which has been CIT (2011) 51 DTR 217 (J&K) which has been CIT (2011) 51 DTR 217 (J&K) which has been affirmed by Hon'ble Apex Court vide Civil appeal No. 10061 affirmed by Hon'ble Apex Court vide Civil appeal No. 10061 affirmed by Hon'ble Apex Court vide Civil appeal No. 10061 of 2011 dated 19 of 2011 dated 19-04-2016. Further the Hon’ble Ja…

DCIT Circle-1, Thane vs. M/S Everest Industries Ltd., Delhi

ITA 655/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap, D.R
Section 43(1)

…al resources. Hence, the incentive received by assessee is on capital account. The Ld. CIT(A) also treated the sum as capital receipt by taking strength from the Judgment of Hon’ble Jammu & Kashmir High Court in the case of Shree Balaii Alloys vs.- CIT (2011) 51 DTR 217 (J&K) which has been affirmed by Hon'ble Apex Court vide Civil appeal No. 10061 of 2011 dated 19-04-2016. Further the Hon’ble Jammu and Kashmeer High Court while rendering its Judgment in the case of Shree Balaji Alloys -vs.- CIT (supra) had relied on the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sahnev Steel & Press Works - vs…

Everest Industrial Ltd., Noida vs. Dy CIT Circle-1, Thane

ITA 7792/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap, D.R
Section 43(1)

…al resources. Hence, the incentive received by assessee is on capital account. The Ld. CIT(A) also treated the sum as capital receipt by taking strength from the Judgment of Hon’ble Jammu & Kashmir High Court in the case of Shree Balaii Alloys vs.- CIT (2011) 51 DTR 217 (J&K) which has been affirmed by Hon'ble Apex Court vide Civil appeal No. 10061 of 2011 dated 19-04-2016. Further the Hon’ble Jammu and Kashmeer High Court while rendering its Judgment in the case of Shree Balaji Alloys -vs.- CIT (supra) had relied on the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sahnev Steel & Press Works - vs…

Greenlam Industries Limited, Tinsukia vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-Tinsukia, Tinsukia

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per the terms indicated above

ITA 402/GTY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati19 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 25Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 31(3)(a)

…ich it is evident that Department has not challenged the above issue in appeal before ITAT. 2.6.4 The principle for deciding the nature of subsidy has also been spelt out by the Hon'ble Jammu & Kashmir High Court in Shree Balaji Alloys & Ors. -vs.- CIT (2011) 51 DTR 217 (J&K) wherein it has been held that Excise Duty Refund and Interest Subsidy received for the purpose of eradication of unemployment in the state by acceleration of industrial development and removing backwardness of the area that lagged behind in industrial development is to be treated as capital receipt. The aggrieved department in case of Shree…

DCIT Circle- 1, Thane vs. M/S Everest Industries Ltd, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly

ITA 554/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh Chaitanya Joshi &For Respondent: Shri Amol Kirtane, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 43B

…the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) noted that Excise Duty Exemption availed by the assessee company was on capital account by relying on decision of Hon’ble Jammu & Kashmir High Court in the case of Shree Balaii Alloys vs.- CIT (2011) 51 DTR 217 (J&K) which has been affirmed by Hon'ble Apex Court vide Civil appeal No. 10061 of 2011 dated 19-04-2016. As regards the ground for non-exclusion of subsidy from cost of assets, Ld CIT(A) followed its decision in case of sales tax subsidy. 26 ITA.No.7791/Mum./2019 & ITA.No.554/Mum./2020 Everest Industries Limited, Noida. U.P. 15. Aggrieved by…

Everest Industrial Ltd., Noida vs. Dy CIT Circle-1, Thane

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly

ITA 7791/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh Chaitanya Joshi &For Respondent: Shri Amol Kirtane, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 43B

…the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) noted that Excise Duty Exemption availed by the assessee company was on capital account by relying on decision of Hon’ble Jammu & Kashmir High Court in the case of Shree Balaii Alloys vs.- CIT (2011) 51 DTR 217 (J&K) which has been affirmed by Hon'ble Apex Court vide Civil appeal No. 10061 of 2011 dated 19-04-2016. As regards the ground for non-exclusion of subsidy from cost of assets, Ld CIT(A) followed its decision in case of sales tax subsidy. 26 ITA.No.7791/Mum./2019 & ITA.No.554/Mum./2020 Everest Industries Limited, Noida. U.P. 15. Aggrieved by…

ACIT, Circle - Tinsukia, Tinsukia vs. M/S. Greenply Industries Ltd., Tinsukia

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 359/GTY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati21 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Manish Borad

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 80ISection 92C

…in the case of CIT –vs.- Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Limited (2008) 306 ITR 392 (SC), Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. –vs.- CIT (1997) 228 ITR 253 (SC), judgment of the Hon’ble Jammu & Kashmir High Court in the case of Shree Balaji Alloys & ors –vs.- CIT (2011) 51 DTR 217 (J&K), judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT –vs.- Ankit Metals & Power Ltd. (2019) ITA 155 of 2018 (Cal.) and in the case of CIT –vs.- Rasoi Limited (335 ITR 438 (Cal.). Further reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Special Bench decision of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of DCIT –vs.- Reliance Industries…

Greenply Industries Limited, Tinsukia vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-Tinsukia, Tinsukia

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 232/GTY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati21 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Manish Borad

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 80ISection 92C

…in the case of CIT –vs.- Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Limited (2008) 306 ITR 392 (SC), Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. –vs.- CIT (1997) 228 ITR 253 (SC), judgment of the Hon’ble Jammu & Kashmir High Court in the case of Shree Balaji Alloys & ors –vs.- CIT (2011) 51 DTR 217 (J&K), judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT –vs.- Ankit Metals & Power Ltd. (2019) ITA 155 of 2018 (Cal.) and in the case of CIT –vs.- Rasoi Limited (335 ITR 438 (Cal.). Further reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Special Bench decision of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of DCIT –vs.- Reliance Industries…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S. Sanklecha Constructions, Nashik

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1214/PUN/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Amol Kamat
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80I

…ion. Similar view has been taken by the Hon‟ble Madras High Court in the case of Vishwas Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT reported as 255 CTR 149 and the Pune Bench of Tribunal in the case of DCIT Vs. Magarpatta Township Development & Construction Co. reported as 141 ITD 682. 4.3 In respect of liquidated damages the ld. AR submitted that the assessee entered into agreement dated 03-08-2007 with M/s. National Reality Limited for sale of land along with constructed building comprising of basement, ground floor and second floor having aggregate constructed area of 43200 sq. ft. to be used as a Commercial Mall. As per th…

The J.K. Trust Bombay, Mumbai vs. CIT (E), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3769/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S The J. K. Trust Cit (Exemption) Bombay, R. No.617, 6Th Floor, बनाम/ New Hind House, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Narottam Morrjee Marg, Lalbaug, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400001

Section 11Section 263

…263. 2.11. The case of the assessee is further fortified by the decision in Siddhi Real Estate Developers vs CIT (ITA 47 M/s J.K. Trust Bombay No.2630 to 2635/Mum/2012) order dated 13/05/2014, wherein, various decisions like Mudhit Madanlal Gupta vs ACIT (51 DTR 217), DCIT vs Magapatta Township Development and Construction Company (141 ITD 682)(Pune), Rahul Construction Company vs ITO (ITA No.1250/Pn/2009), CIT vs Vandana Properties (2012) 353 ITR 36 (Bom.) and various decisions were considered and finally decided in favour of the assessee. 2.12. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (201…

Maharashtra Airport Development, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 3, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3741/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Maharashtra Airport Pr. Cit-3, Development Company 612, 6Th Floor, बनाम/ Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 8Th Floor, World Trade M. K. Road, Centre, Tower No.1, Mumbai-400020 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aadcm9623M

Section 148Section 154Section 263Section 80I

…proceedings under section 263. 3.1. The case of the assessee is further fortified by the decision in Siddhi Real Estate Developers vs CIT (ITA No.2630 to 2635/Mum/2012) order dated 13/05/2014, wherein, various decisions like Mudhit Madanlal Gupta vs ACIT (51 DTR 217), DCIT vs Magapatta Township Development and Construction Company (141 ITD 682)(Pune), Rahul Construction Company vs ITO (ITA 45 Maharashtra Airport Development Company Ltd. No.1250/Pn/2009), CIT vs Vandana Properties (2012) 353 ITR 36 (Bom.) and various decisions were considered and finally decided in favour of the assessee. 3.2. Hon’ble Del…

DCIT CC 3(4) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. Jivesh Developers & Properties P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue‟s appeals are dismissed

ITA 5643/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

…ingapore (Pte.) Ltd., [2008] 24 SOT 433 (Mum.); iv) CIT v/s Magarpatta Township Development & Construction Co. Ltd., ITA no.293/2013 (Bom.); 33 M/s. Jivesh Developers & Properties Pvt. Ltd. v) DCIT v/s Magarpatta Township Development & Construction Co. Ltd., 141 ITD 682 (Pune); vi) Poddar & Ashish Developers v/s ITO, 152 ITD 117 (Mum.); vii) Baba Promoters & Developers v/s ITO, 54 SOT 89 (Mum.) viii) Emgeen Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v/s DCIT, 47 SOT 98 (Mum.); & ix) ACIT v/s Sincity Housing, ITA no.5183/Mum./2014. 19. We have considered rival submissions and perused materials on record. We have also applied our mind to…

Mahavir Enterprises, Navi Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 28, Navi Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as above

ITA 920/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S. Mahavir Enterprises, The Emerald, 3Rd Floor, Plot No.195B, Sector -12. Vashi, Navi Mumbai 400703 Pan:Aakfm7869D ...... Appellant Vs. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -28, Tower No.6, 3Rd Floor, Room No.4, Vashi Rly. Station Complex, Vashi Navi Mumbai 400703 .... Respondent

For Appellant: S/Shri Sunil Pathak&For Respondent: Shri N.P.Singh
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80Section 80I

…contended that the CIT has wrongly observed that the entire ‘Balaji Garden’ complex consisting of nine buildings is to be reckoned as one housing project. In this context, reliance has also been placed on the following decisions:- (i) Mudit M. Gupta v. ACIT, 51 DTR 217 (Mum-Trib) (ii) Siddhi Real Estate Developers vs. CIT(Central ), Pune., ITA NO.2630 to 2635/Mum/2012 dated 13/05/2014. (iii) DCIT vs. Magarpatta Township Development & Construction Co. 150 TTJ 590 (Pune) (iv) M/s. Rahul Construction C. Vs. ITO, Ward 3(1), Pune, 51 SOT 192 (Pune) 6 5.2 Coming to the factual matrix, Ld. Representative for the a…

People Infocom Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. C.I.T. Cir.7, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 210/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2007-08 People Infocom Private Ltd. Cit-7, C/O- Samria & Co. Room No.611, बनाम/ Chartered Accountants, 6Th Floor, Vs. 2E, Court Chambers, Aayakar Bhavan, 35, New Marine Lines, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400020 Pan No.Aadcp5658H (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee)

Section 263Section 51

…proceedings under section 263. 3.5. The case of the assessee is further fortified by the decision in Siddhi Real Estate Developers vs CIT (ITA No.2630 to 2635/Mum/2012) order dated 13/05/2014, wherein, various decisions like Mudhit Madanlal Gupta vs ACIT (51 DTR 217), DCIT vs Magapatta Township Development and Construction Company (141 ITD 682)(Pune), Rahul Construction Company vs ITO (ITA No.1250/Pn/2009), CIT vs Vandana Properties (2012) 353 ITR 36 (Bom.) and various decisions were considered and finally decided in favour of the assessee. 19 3.6. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2…

Schneider Electric It Business India Pvt Ltd vs. CIT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee-company is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 833/BANG/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 10ASection 263Section 92A

…(Mumbai ITAT) x. Bartronics India Ltd. v. ACIT [2012] 52 SOT 188 (Hyderabad ITAT) IT(TP)A No.833/Bang/2013 Page 7 of 9 xi. S.B. Builders & Developers v. ITO [2011] 45 SOT 335 (Mum. ITAT) xii. DClT vs. Magarpatta Township Development & Construction Co [2013] 141 ITD 682 (Pune ITAT) xiii. ITO v. M/s. Sahasra Electronics Private Limited (ITA No. 1951/Del/2009) (Delhi ITAT) On the other hand, learned CIT(DR) relied on the order of the CIT. 7. We heard the rival submissions and perused material on record. The only issue involved in this appeal is about legality of the proceedings initiated by the CIT exercising po…

Krunal Pravinchandra Gala, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 1 Thane, Pune

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1312/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendra

Section 263Section 80I

…rge layout and eligibility for deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act, the ld. counsel placed reliance upon the decision in CIT vs Vandana Properties 353 ITR 36 (Bom.), DCIT vs Karunal P. Gala (ITA No.7724/Mum/2010) order dated 03/08/2012, Madhur M. Gupta vs ACIT (51 DTR 217)(Mum.)(2011), DCIT vs Magarpatta Township Development and Construction Co. 141 ITD 682 (Pune)(2012), M/s Rahul Construction Company vs ITO (ITA No.1250/Pn/2009 and 707/PN/2010) order dated 30/03/2012 of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal, ITO vs Cosmos Enterprises (ITA No.6744/Mum/2010) order dated 15/10/2013, ACIT vs Cosmos Realtors & ORs. (ITA No.53…

Mudhit Madanlal Gupta v. ACIT (51 DTR 217) — Cited in 24 Judgments | BharatTax