PCIT v. Majestic Developers (426 ITR 175)

Bee Gee Construction Co, Zirakpur vs. ACIT, Cir-3(1), Chandigarh

The appeal stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 599/CHANDI/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl.CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

…herefore, this plea of Ld. AR could not be accepted. 5. On merits, Ld. AR has relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs. Majestic Developers (125 Taxmann.com 82) confirming the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court (reported as 122 Taxmann.com 123). The adjudication of Hon’ble High Court was as under: - 4. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for parties and on perusal of order under challenge, it would clearly indicate that claim of the assessee was under section 80-IB(10) of the Act. The expression found in second explanation to clause 3(a) of Sub-section (10) of Section…

Bee Gee Construction Co, Zirakpur vs. ACIT, Circle- 3(1), Chandigarh

The appeal stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 598/CHANDI/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl.CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 80

…herefore, this plea of Ld. AR could not be accepted. 5. On merits, Ld. AR has relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs. Majestic Developers (125 Taxmann.com 82) confirming the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court (reported as 122 Taxmann.com 123). The adjudication of Hon’ble High Court was as under: - 4. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for parties and on perusal of order under challenge, it would clearly indicate that claim of the assessee was under section 80-IB(10) of the Act. The expression found in second explanation to clause 3(a) of Sub-section (10) of Section…

M/S. Silicon Estates, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed

ITA 25/BANG/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Silicon Estates, The Deputy # 14, 6Th Floor, Commissioner Of Geneva House, Income Tax, Cunningham Road, Central Circle Bengaluru – 560 001. 1(4), Vs. Pan: Abefs6150N Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Tata Krishna, Advocate Revenue By : Shri D.K. Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 11-09-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 04-12-2023 Order Per Madhumita Roythe Instant Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 24.11.2020 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-11, Bangalore Arising Out Of The Order Dated 30.12.2015 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Central Circle – 1(4), Bangalore U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For A.Y. 2013-14 Whereby & Whereunder The Rejection Of The Claim U/S. 80Ib(10) Of Rs.4,03,40,492/- For A.Y. 2013-14 Has Been Confirmed.

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/s. Silicon Estates, The Deputy # 14, 6th Floor, Commissioner of Geneva House, Income Tax, Cunningham Road, Central Circle Bengaluru – 560 001. 1(4), Vs. PAN: ABEFS6150N Bengaluru. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Tata Krishna, Advocate Revenue by : Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 11-09-2023 Date of Pronouncement : 04-12-2023 ORDER PER MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER The instant appeal filed by the assessee is directed against…