S J R Builder v. ACIT

3 ITR (Trib) 569Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2010#12577 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 362,844 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Judgments citing S J R Builder v. ACIT

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

…built up area exceeded 1500 sq ft will be excluded for the quantification of deduction u/s 80IB(10) and thereby allowed pro rata deduction for profits from eligible residential units. Similar view was taken by ITAT in the case of S J R Builder vs ACIT (2010) 3 ITR (Trib) 569 (Bang). 19.5.12. The alternative argument of the AR is supported by the decisions referred above. I therefore direct the assessing officer to allow deduction u/s 80IB(10) in respect of eligible units comprising of 2 BHK units whose area is less than 1000 sq ft even after including the area of balconies. The quantum of deduction allowable on…

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

…built up area exceeded 1500 sq ft will be excluded for the quantification of deduction u/s 80IB(10) and thereby allowed pro rata deduction for profits from eligible residential units. Similar view was taken by ITAT in the case of S J R Builder vs ACIT (2010) 3 ITR (Trib) 569 (Bang). 19.5.12. The alternative argument of the AR is supported by the decisions referred above. I therefore direct the assessing officer to allow deduction u/s 80IB(10) in respect of eligible units comprising of 2 BHK units whose area is less than 1000 sq ft even after including the area of balconies. The quantum of deduction allowable on…

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

…built up area exceeded 1500 sq ft will be excluded for the quantification of deduction u/s 80IB(10) and thereby allowed pro rata deduction for profits from eligible residential units. Similar view was taken by ITAT in the case of S J R Builder vs ACIT (2010) 3 ITR (Trib) 569 (Bang). 19.5.12. The alternative argument of the AR is supported by the decisions referred above. I therefore direct the assessing officer to allow deduction u/s 80IB(10) in respect of eligible units comprising of 2 BHK units whose area is less than 1000 sq ft even after including the area of balconies. The quantum of deduction allowable on…

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

…built up area exceeded 1500 sq ft will be excluded for the quantification of deduction u/s 80IB(10) and thereby allowed pro rata deduction for profits from eligible residential units. Similar view was taken by ITAT in the case of S J R Builder vs ACIT (2010) 3 ITR (Trib) 569 (Bang). 19.5.12. The alternative argument of the AR is supported by the decisions referred above. I therefore direct the assessing officer to allow deduction u/s 80IB(10) in respect of eligible units comprising of 2 BHK units whose area is less than 1000 sq ft even after including the area of balconies. The quantum of deduction allowable on…

Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 2(3), Pune vs. Laxman Sopanrao Nimhan, Pune

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1870/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Sept 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Shri Navin Gupta
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80ISection 80l

…es Developers Ltd. (ITA No. 156 & 172/Pn/2011) e. Ekta Housing Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 3649/Mum/2009) f. Air Developers [122 ITD 125 (Nag)] g. Sheth Developers Pvt. Ltd. [33 SOT 277 (Mum)] h. Sanghvi & Doshi Enterprises [131 ITD 151 (Dhennai)(TM)] i. SJR Builders [3 ITR (Trib) 569 (Mum)] 7.3.3.8 In this connection, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding interpretation of the Legal status may be cited. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Bajaj Tempo Ltd Vs CIT (1992) 196 ITR 188 (SC) held that the 3 ITA No. 1870/PUN/2017, A.Y. 2012-13 interpretation of the legal statutes are required to be made on the b…

M/S. Shipra Estate Ltd. & Jai Krishan Estate Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is

ITA 5849/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2009-10 Ay: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Vidharthi, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…ord. As far as ground no. 2 of the Department’s appeal is concerned, it is seen that the issue of pro rata deduction is covered in favour of the assessee by the following cases:- i) ITO vs Air Developers (2009) 122 ITD 125 (Nagpur) ii) SJR Builders vs ACIT 3 ITR (Trib) 569 (Bangalore) iii) Sreevatsa Real Estate (P) Ltd. 9 ITR (Trib) 808 (Chennai) In ITO vs Air Developers (supra), the Nagpur Bench held that:- “In view of the decision of the Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal in the case of (Bengal Ambuja Housing Development Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [IT Appeal No. 1595 (Kol.) of 2005, dated 24-3-2006], which was squarely…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Shipra Estate Ltd., & Jai Krishna Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is

ITA 5614/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2009-10 Ay: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Vidharthi, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…ord. As far as ground no. 2 of the Department’s appeal is concerned, it is seen that the issue of pro rata deduction is covered in favour of the assessee by the following cases:- i) ITO vs Air Developers (2009) 122 ITD 125 (Nagpur) ii) SJR Builders vs ACIT 3 ITR (Trib) 569 (Bangalore) iii) Sreevatsa Real Estate (P) Ltd. 9 ITR (Trib) 808 (Chennai) In ITO vs Air Developers (supra), the Nagpur Bench held that:- “In view of the decision of the Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal in the case of (Bengal Ambuja Housing Development Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [IT Appeal No. 1595 (Kol.) of 2005, dated 24-3-2006], which was squarely…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Shipra Estate Ltd. & Jai Krishan Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is

ITA 1950/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2009-10 Ay: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Vidharthi, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…ord. As far as ground no. 2 of the Department’s appeal is concerned, it is seen that the issue of pro rata deduction is covered in favour of the assessee by the following cases:- i) ITO vs Air Developers (2009) 122 ITD 125 (Nagpur) ii) SJR Builders vs ACIT 3 ITR (Trib) 569 (Bangalore) iii) Sreevatsa Real Estate (P) Ltd. 9 ITR (Trib) 808 (Chennai) In ITO vs Air Developers (supra), the Nagpur Bench held that:- “In view of the decision of the Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal in the case of (Bengal Ambuja Housing Development Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [IT Appeal No. 1595 (Kol.) of 2005, dated 24-3-2006], which was squarely…

S J R Builder v. ACIT (3 ITR (Trib) 569) — Cited in 8 Judgments | BharatTax