Pr. CIT v. Infinity Infotech Parks Ltd.

407 ITR 137High Court2018#17868 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,421 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2024.

Issues it is cited on

section 269uasection 2(47)(v)section 53asection 53section 2(47)full value of considerationsection 269stamp duty valuesection 50csection 50long term capital gainsfair market value

Judgments citing Pr. CIT v. Infinity Infotech Parks Ltd.

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(1), Kolkata vs. Ritman Commercial Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1168/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 148Section 2(47)Section 2(47)(v)Section 43CSection 53A

…al of Page 2 of 7 I.T.A. No.: 1168/KOL/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ritman Commercial Pvt. Ltd. revenue until and unless the JDA could be fulfilled in letter. e) The appellant relied on the case of Pr. CIT vs. Infinity Infotech Parks Ltd. reported in [2018] 407 ITR 137 (Calcutta) and Pr. CIT vs. Shelter Project Ltd. reported in [2022] 445 ITR 291 (Calcutta). Through these case laws it was argued that no transfer within the meaning of Section 2(47)(v) of the Act would take place until the builder constructed the property and handed over a portion of the same to the assessee as per terms of agreement. 1.2. The ld…

Biswajit Bose, New Panvel vs. Pr CIT -1, Thane

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and order of Ld

ITA 1322/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shree Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalbiswajit Bose B103, Balaji Niwas, Plot No-107-108, Sector-8, New Panvel, Panvel-410206 Pan No. Acxpb9332K ....Appellant Pr Cit-1 Thane Room No-7, 6The Floor, B Wing, Ashar It Park, Wagale Industrial Estate, Thane West, Mumbai-400604 ...Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Neha Sharma & S.SriramFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(47)Section 263

…missions of the Appellant, the AO accepted the returned income of the Appellant and passed the assessment order dated 23.11.2018 under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. Refer to Page 03 to 08 of the Paper-book I. 10. In Infinity InfoTech Parks Ltd. [2018] 407 ITR 137 (Calcutta), the Calcutta High Court was concerned with the point of taxability in case where the assessee entered into a joint development agreement of land owned by it in terms of which a part of constructed area was to be given to assessee and remaining portion was to be kept by builder. In such facts and circumstances, the Court held that no t…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 25(3), Mumbai vs. Pankaj Enterprises, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for AY 2012

ITA 4876/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Pankaj Enterprises, Jt. Cit Range-25(3), C/O Shankarlal Jain & Assoicates Pritashkar Bhavan, Bkc, 12, Engineer Building, 265, Vs. Bandra (E), Princess Street, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax- M/S Pankaj Enterprises, 25(3), Plot No. 1, Behind Ice Factory, Room No. 601, C-10, 6Th Floor, Vs. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bandra Mumbai-400072. Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Co No. 313/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4875/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Co No. 312/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4876/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. Shankarlal L. Jain, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Jasdeep Singh, CIT-DR

…2(47)(4) provisions of section 2(47)(4) are not attracted in the case of the assessee. are not attracted in the case of the assessee. 10.10 Further we find that in the case of Further we find that in the case of Infinity Infotech Infinity Infotech Parks Ltd 407 ITR 137( 137(Cal), also possession of the land was given , also possession of the land was given to the developer for construction, wherein the agreement envisaged r for construction, wherein the agreement envisaged r for construction, wherein the agreement envisaged that developer would construct upon the land and in lieu of such that developer would co…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 25(3), Mumbai vs. Pankaj Enterprises, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for AY 2012

ITA 4875/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Pankaj Enterprises, Jt. Cit Range-25(3), C/O Shankarlal Jain & Assoicates Pritashkar Bhavan, Bkc, 12, Engineer Building, 265, Vs. Bandra (E), Princess Street, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax- M/S Pankaj Enterprises, 25(3), Plot No. 1, Behind Ice Factory, Room No. 601, C-10, 6Th Floor, Vs. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bandra Mumbai-400072. Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Co No. 313/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4875/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Co No. 312/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4876/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. Shankarlal L. Jain, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Jasdeep Singh, CIT-DR

…2(47)(4) provisions of section 2(47)(4) are not attracted in the case of the assessee. are not attracted in the case of the assessee. 10.10 Further we find that in the case of Further we find that in the case of Infinity Infotech Infinity Infotech Parks Ltd 407 ITR 137( 137(Cal), also possession of the land was given , also possession of the land was given to the developer for construction, wherein the agreement envisaged r for construction, wherein the agreement envisaged r for construction, wherein the agreement envisaged that developer would construct upon the land and in lieu of such that developer would co…

Pankaj Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Jt CIT RG 25(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for AY 2012

ITA 3773/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Pankaj Enterprises, Jt. Cit Range-25(3), C/O Shankarlal Jain & Assoicates Pritashkar Bhavan, Bkc, 12, Engineer Building, 265, Vs. Bandra (E), Princess Street, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax- M/S Pankaj Enterprises, 25(3), Plot No. 1, Behind Ice Factory, Room No. 601, C-10, 6Th Floor, Vs. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bandra Mumbai-400072. Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Co No. 313/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4875/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Co No. 312/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4876/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. Shankarlal L. Jain, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Jasdeep Singh, CIT-DR

…2(47)(4) provisions of section 2(47)(4) are not attracted in the case of the assessee. are not attracted in the case of the assessee. 10.10 Further we find that in the case of Further we find that in the case of Infinity Infotech Infinity Infotech Parks Ltd 407 ITR 137( 137(Cal), also possession of the land was given , also possession of the land was given to the developer for construction, wherein the agreement envisaged r for construction, wherein the agreement envisaged r for construction, wherein the agreement envisaged that developer would construct upon the land and in lieu of such that developer would co…

Pr. CIT v. Infinity Infotech Parks Ltd. (407 ITR 137) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax