How many judgments cite Pvt Ltd. v. ACIT?

31 judgments on BharatTax cite Pvt Ltd. v. ACIT (37 Taxmann.com 361), spanning 2016 to 2025.

Pvt Ltd. v. ACIT

37 Taxmann.com 361Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2013#3832 most cited

What is Pvt Ltd. v. ACIT authority for?

An assessee is eligible for deduction under section 80IA in respect of work executed by it on behalf of a Joint Venture (JV), even if the entire work was executed by the assessee for and on behalf of the JV. This eligibility is upheld even when the Assessing Officer disputes the ITAT's order.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

PNC Construction Co. Ltd v. DCIT · 37 Taxmann.com 361 · ITAT · deduction under section 80IA · joint venture · JV · infrastructure project · eligibility for deduction

Also reported as

130 ITD 52146 SOT 160

Issues it is cited on

section 80ia(13)section 80iab section 80ia(4)(i)section 8o section 80ia(4)infrastructure facility deduction under section 80ia deduction u/s 80ia section 17 section 201(1a)section 80ia section 194c

Judgments citing Pvt Ltd. v. ACIT

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-1, Bhopal vs. Dilip Buildcon Limited, Bhopal

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 816/IND/2018[14-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Jan 2022

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)(iia)Section 32ASection 80I

…अपील"य अ"धकरण, इ"दौर "यायपीठ, इ"दौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & ITA No. 819 & 820/Ind/2019 & Assessment Year:2014-15 to 2017-18 M/s. Dilip Buildcon Ltd. DCIT, Central-1, Bhopal Bhopal बनाम/ (Appellant) (Respondent ) Vs. P.A. No.AACCD6124B & ITA No. 881 & 882/Ind/2019 & Assessment Year:2014-15 to 2017-18 DCIT, Central-1, M/s. Dilip Buildcon Ltd. Bhopal Bhopal बनाम/ Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.AACCD6124B M/s. Dilip Buildcon Ltd. ITA No.782/ind/2018 & others Revenue by Shri P.K.…

Dilip Buildcon Limited, Bhopal vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-1, Bhopal

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 782/IND/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)(iia)Section 32ASection 80I

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Knr Constructions Limited, Hyderabad

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 190/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Apr 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu(Through Virtual Hearing)

For Appellant: Smt. Nivedita Biswas & Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey (D.Rs)For Respondent: Shri S. Rama Rao

Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD ‘ A ‘ BENCH, HYDERABAD. BEFORE SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Through Virtual Hearing) ITA Nos.190 & 191/Hyd/2018 (Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15) Dy. Commissioner of Vs. M/s. KNR Constructions Limited, Income Tax, Plot Nos.113 & 114, Phase I, KNR Central Circle 2(1), House, Kavuri Hills, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. PAN AAACK 8316L Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Smt. Nivedita Biswas & Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey (D.Rs) Respondent By : Shri S. Rama Rao. Date of Hearing : 24.02.2021. Date of Pronouncement : 23.04.2…

Synchem Chemicals (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 10(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2753/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2021AY 2010-11

Section 10Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 45

…received was very nominal and much less than fair rent” 7.2. “On the facts and circumstances of the case and in the law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to apply the ratio of the decision in the case of Moni Kumar Subba Rao (240 CTR 97(FB) (Del) and Tiroli Investments (130 ITD 521) (Mum), wherein it has been held that A.O. has powers to determine the fair rent when he finds that actual rent received is much less than amount for which property might be reasonably let out from year to year.” 8. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, vary, omit or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal at any time before or at t…

Rameti Devi Jain, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 39, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3916/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Rameti Devi Jain, 82, The Assistant Commissioner Maker Chambers Iii, Of Income Tax, Central Circle Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai- 6(4), Air Building, 19Th Floor, 400021. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aabpj1887B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Mr. Chaitanya Anjaria, Dr Date Of Hearing : 09/05/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 27/05/2019

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Chaitanya Anjaria, DR

Section 143(3)Section 23Section 23(1)

…at Hon’ble jurisdiction High Court in 323 ITR 104 (supra) has thrown light on the issue. The decision in ITO vs Spearhead Properties Pvt. ltd. 46 SOT 208, in Tivoli Investment and Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. vs ACIT 130 ITR 521 and in ITO vs Hansa Motors Works. 46 SOT 160 has also discussed identical issue. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), while confirming the addition and enhancing the annual increase of 5% to the rateable value is without any basis. So far as, the observation of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) that municipal authorities have not revised the rateable value of the flats cann…

Harsh Anand Jain, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 39, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee and Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4242/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Shri Harsh Anand Jain Vs. The Deputy Commissioner 82, Maker Chambers Iii Of Income Tax, Central Nariman Point Circle-39, Room No.32(1), Mumbai – 400 021 Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai - 400020 Pan/Gir No.Afbpj0984J Appellant) .. Respondent) The Deputy Commissioner Vs. Shri Harsh Anand Jain Of Income Tax, Central 82, Maker Chambers Iii Circle-39, Room No.32(1), Nariman Point Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai - 400020 Pan/Gir No.Afbpj0984J Appellant) .. Respondent) Assessee By Shri Anuj Kisnadwala Revenue By Shri Omi Ningshen

Section 143(3)Section 23Section 24

…ne of the factors and the same can be ignored if it does not reflect the true ALV. These decision are: i. ITO Vs. Spearhead Properties (P) Ltd. 46 SOT 208 ii. Tivoli Investment and Trading company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. AICT 130 ITD 521 iii. ITO Vs. Hansa motors Works 46 SOT 160. (2) "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in holding that determination of ALV of House property at Rs.1,71,94,824/- is not correct and same cannot be exceed Rs.12,96,463/- ALV as determined by municipal corporation when in the present case there are evidences to suggest that the Asses…

Satypal Jaikumar Jain, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 39, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the

ITA 3965/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2010-11 Acit, Satyapal Jaikumar Jain, Cc-39, R. No.32(1), 82, Maker Chambers-Iii, बनाम/ Ground Floor, Nariman Point, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400021 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aabpj1888Q Assessment Year: 2010-11 Satyapal Jaikumar Jain, Acit, 82, Maker Chambers-Iii, Cc-39, R. No.32(1), बनाम/ Nariman Point, Ground Floor, Vs. Mumbai-400021 Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aabpj1888Q

Section 131

…only one of the facts and the same can be ignored if it does not reflect the true ALV. These decisions are: 1. ITO vs. Spearhead Properties (P) Ltd. 46 SOT 208 2. Tivoli Investment and Trading company Pvt Ltd vs. ACIT 130 ITD 521 3. ITO vs. Hansa motor works 46 SOT 160 ITA Nos.3831 & 3965/Mum/2014 11 Satyapal Jaikumar Jain 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) was justified in holding that the determination of ALV of House property of Rs.1,65,51,632/- (3,94,508 + 1,61,57,124) jis not correct and same cannot be exceed Rs. 94,181/- (5,880 + 88,301) i.e., ALV as d…

ACIT CC 39, Mumbai vs. Satypal Jain, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the

ITA 3831/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Section 131

…etermined by the municipal authorities is only one of the facts and the same can be ignored if it does not reflect the true ALV. These decisions are: 1. ITO vs. Spearhead Properties (P) Ltd. 46 SOT 208 2. Tivoli Investment and Trading company Pvt Ltd vs. ACIT 130 ITD 521 3. ITO vs. Hansa motor works 46 SOT 160 ITA Nos.3831 & 3965/Mum/2014 11 Satyapal Jaikumar Jain 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) was justified in holding that the determination of ALV of House property of Rs.1,65,51,632/- (3,94,508 + 1,61,57,124) jis not correct and same cannot be exceed Rs.…

ACIT 14(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Petron Engineering Construction Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2794/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Asstt. Commissioner Of Income M/S Petron Engineering Tax 14(2)(2), Construction Ltd, 432,4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, 6Th Floor,Swastik Chambers, फनधभ/ M K Road, Sion Trombay Road, Vs. Mumbai-400020 P B No.7206, Chembur, Mumbai-400071 स्थधमी रेखध सं./ Pan : Aaccp8775G (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीरधथी की ओय से / Revenue By : Ms.Anupama Singh प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri Ayush J Rajani

For Respondent: Ms.Anupama Singh

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ “जी” म ुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री सी. एन.प्रसाद, न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री राजेश कुमार, ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JM AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM Asstt. Commissioner of Income M/s Petron Engineering Tax 14(2)(2), Construction Ltd, 432,4th floor, Aayakar Bhavan, 6th floor,Swastik Chambers, फनधभ/ M K Road, Sion Trombay Road, Vs. Mumbai-400020 P B No.7206, Chembur, Mumbai-400071 स्थधमी रेखध सं./ PAN : AACCP8775G (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीरधथी की ओय से / Revenue by : Ms.Anupama Singh प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respo…

Hindustan Uniliver Ltd ( As Successor to Bon Ltd), Mumbai vs. ITO 1(1)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1144/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Nov 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No. 1144/Mum/2011 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2004-2005) Hindustan Unilever Ltd Income Tax Officer 1(1)(2) (As Successor To Bon Ltd) Aaykar Bhawan बिाम/ Hindustan Lever House Mumbai Vs. 165/166 Backbay Reclamation Mumbai – 400 020. स्थामी रेखा सं./जीआइआय सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcb0171H (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri Percy Pardiwala / Shri Nishant Thakkar / Ms. Jasmine Amalsadwala प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri J.P.Jangid, Dr

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri J.P.Jangid, DR

Section 143(3)Section 155JSection 40ASection 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(b)

…constitute a small fraction of turnover and hence, required to be deleted. In the regard, reliance was placed on following decisions:- (i) CIT Vs Vallbh Glass Works Ltd (Gujrat High Court) 38 Taxmann.com 177 (ii) PNC Construction Co. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Agra) 37 Taxmann.com 361 The Ld. DR on the other hand has contended that the onus to prove the expenses squarely lied on the assessee and he has failed to discharge the same and hence, disallowance has rightly been made. 8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused material on record. The factual position is that although complete details were made available…

ACIT CC 39, Mumbai vs. Laxmi Satyapal Jain, Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4726/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Section 143(3)

…etermined by the municipal authorities is only one of the facts and the same can be ignored if it does not reflect the true ALV. These decisions are: 1. ITO vs. Spearhead Properties (P) Ltd. 46 SOT 208 2. Tivoli Investment and Trading company Pvt Ltd vs. ACIT 130 ITD 521 3. ITO vs. Hansa motor works 46 SOT 160 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) was justified in holding that the determination of ALV of House property of Rs.1,65,51,632/- (3,94,508 + 1,61,57,124) jis not correct and same cannot be exceed Rs. 94,181/- (5,880 + 88,301) i.e., ALV as determined by mun…