Sanghvi & Doshi Enterprise v. ITO: 141 TTJ I (Chennai 'A')(TM)

255 CTR 156High Court2013#12545 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2021.

Judgments citing Sanghvi & Doshi Enterprise v. ITO: 141 TTJ I (Chennai 'A')(TM)

ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 10(1), CHENNAI vs. ANJLALI FOUNDATIONS, CHENNAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed

ITA 722/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jan 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. G. Chandrababu. Sr. ARFor Respondent: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 80Section 80I

…n u/s. 80IB(10) and accordingly disallowed the assessee’s claim u/s. 80IB(10). Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) held , inter alia, that the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs Sanghvi & Doshi Enterprises 255 CTR 156 has held that ownership of the land is not a criteria to decide the status of developer to claim the deduction u/s. 80IB(10), this decision supports the view that both developer and land owner can claim benefit of deduction u/s 80IB(10) in respect of their shares, the deduction is available for the project and not for the individual assessee an…

M/S. PRATHAM DEVELOPERS,,VADODARA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA

ITA 3086/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2019AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Milind Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri H.V. Gurjar, CIT-D.R
Section 143(2)Section 801Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH Before: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Member And Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant Member Sl. ITA Assess Appellant Respondent No ment . Year 1 2000/Ahd/2014 2010- ACIT, M/s. Pratham 11 Cir.2(2), Developers, Baroda Baroda, PAN: AAHFP2699D 2 283/Ahd/2017 2010- DCIT, M/s. Pratham 11 Cir.1(2), Developers, Baroda Baroda 3 2192/Ahd/2015 2011- DCIT, M/s. Pratham 12 Cir.1(2), Developers, Baroda Baroda 4 2769/Ahd/2015 2012- DCIT, M/s. Pratham 13 Cir.1(2), Developers, Baroda Baroda 5 3086/Ahd/2016 2010- M/s. Pratham DCIT, Cir.1(2), 11 Developers, Vadodara Baroda 6 153…

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2),, BARODA vs. M/S. PRATHAM DEVELOPERS, BARODA

ITA 2000/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2019AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Milind Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri H.V. Gurjar, CIT-D.R
Section 143(2)Section 801Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH Before: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Member And Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant Member Sl. ITA Assess Appellant Respondent No ment . Year 1 2000/Ahd/2014 2010- ACIT, M/s. Pratham 11 Cir.2(2), Developers, Baroda Baroda, PAN: AAHFP2699D 2 283/Ahd/2017 2010- DCIT, M/s. Pratham 11 Cir.1(2), Developers, Baroda Baroda 3 2192/Ahd/2015 2011- DCIT, M/s. Pratham 12 Cir.1(2), Developers, Baroda Baroda 4 2769/Ahd/2015 2012- DCIT, M/s. Pratham 13 Cir.1(2), Developers, Baroda Baroda 5 3086/Ahd/2016 2010- M/s. Pratham DCIT, Cir.1(2), 11 Developers, Vadodara Baroda 6 153…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ANSAL HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION LTD., NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year 2006-07 is hereby allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1576/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year : 2004-05 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Acit, Central Circle-20, Ansal Housing & Construction New Delhi. Ltd., Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri S. K. Jain, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 35DSection 80I

…n :- • Tarnetar Corporation: 362 ITR 174/210 Taxman 206 (Guj. HC) • CIT v. Ittina Properties: ITA Nos. 556/2013/227 Taxman 236 (Mag.) [TS-461- HC-2014 (KAR HC)] • Sanghvi & Doshi Enterprise v. ITO: 141 TTJ I (Chennai 'A')(TM) [Confirmed by Madras High Court @ 255 CTR 156 (Mad.)] • Global Reality v. ITO (2002) 134 ITO 407 (Indore)(Trib.) • D. K. Construction vs. ITO, ITA No. 243/Ind/2010, dt. 6.12.2010, ITAT Indore Bench, BCAJ p. 24, Vol. 42-B, Part 5, February 2011. (Trib.) • RNS Infrastructure Ltd. v. Dy. CIT: [2012] 54 SOT 94 (Bangalore -Trib.) • Siddhivinayak Kohinoor Venture [TS-590-ITAT-2013(PUN)]/159 TTJ 39…

THE ACIT.,, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ANSAL HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year 2006-07 is hereby allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1254/DEL/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year : 2004-05 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Acit, Central Circle-20, Ansal Housing & Construction New Delhi. Ltd., Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri S. K. Jain, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 35DSection 80I

…n :- • Tarnetar Corporation: 362 ITR 174/210 Taxman 206 (Guj. HC) • CIT v. Ittina Properties: ITA Nos. 556/2013/227 Taxman 236 (Mag.) [TS-461- HC-2014 (KAR HC)] • Sanghvi & Doshi Enterprise v. ITO: 141 TTJ I (Chennai 'A')(TM) [Confirmed by Madras High Court @ 255 CTR 156 (Mad.)] • Global Reality v. ITO (2002) 134 ITO 407 (Indore)(Trib.) • D. K. Construction vs. ITO, ITA No. 243/Ind/2010, dt. 6.12.2010, ITAT Indore Bench, BCAJ p. 24, Vol. 42-B, Part 5, February 2011. (Trib.) • RNS Infrastructure Ltd. v. Dy. CIT: [2012] 54 SOT 94 (Bangalore -Trib.) • Siddhivinayak Kohinoor Venture [TS-590-ITAT-2013(PUN)]/159 TTJ 39…

ANSAL HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year 2006-07 is hereby allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1248/DEL/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year : 2004-05 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Acit, Central Circle-20, Ansal Housing & Construction New Delhi. Ltd., Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri S. K. Jain, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 35DSection 80I

…n :- • Tarnetar Corporation: 362 ITR 174/210 Taxman 206 (Guj. HC) • CIT v. Ittina Properties: ITA Nos. 556/2013/227 Taxman 236 (Mag.) [TS-461- HC-2014 (KAR HC)] • Sanghvi & Doshi Enterprise v. ITO: 141 TTJ I (Chennai 'A')(TM) [Confirmed by Madras High Court @ 255 CTR 156 (Mad.)] • Global Reality v. ITO (2002) 134 ITO 407 (Indore)(Trib.) • D. K. Construction vs. ITO, ITA No. 243/Ind/2010, dt. 6.12.2010, ITAT Indore Bench, BCAJ p. 24, Vol. 42-B, Part 5, February 2011. (Trib.) • RNS Infrastructure Ltd. v. Dy. CIT: [2012] 54 SOT 94 (Bangalore -Trib.) • Siddhivinayak Kohinoor Venture [TS-590-ITAT-2013(PUN)]/159 TTJ 39…

ANSAL HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CC-20, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year 2006-07 is hereby allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3193/DEL/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2017AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year : 2004-05 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Acit, Central Circle-20, Ansal Housing & Construction New Delhi. Ltd., Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri S. K. Jain, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 35DSection 80I

…n :- • Tarnetar Corporation: 362 ITR 174/210 Taxman 206 (Guj. HC) • CIT v. Ittina Properties: ITA Nos. 556/2013/227 Taxman 236 (Mag.) [TS-461- HC-2014 (KAR HC)] • Sanghvi & Doshi Enterprise v. ITO: 141 TTJ I (Chennai 'A')(TM) [Confirmed by Madras High Court @ 255 CTR 156 (Mad.)] • Global Reality v. ITO (2002) 134 ITO 407 (Indore)(Trib.) • D. K. Construction vs. ITO, ITA No. 243/Ind/2010, dt. 6.12.2010, ITAT Indore Bench, BCAJ p. 24, Vol. 42-B, Part 5, February 2011. (Trib.) • RNS Infrastructure Ltd. v. Dy. CIT: [2012] 54 SOT 94 (Bangalore -Trib.) • Siddhivinayak Kohinoor Venture [TS-590-ITAT-2013(PUN)]/159 TTJ 39…

ACIT vs. M/S PRASANNA DEVELOPERS,

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1016/BANG/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 May 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P.Boazasst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 2(1), Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. M/S.Prasanna Developers, City Point, Kodaialbail, Mangalore. … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nambirajan Pillai, JCIT(DR)For Respondent: Mrs.Sheetal Borkar, Advocate
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 80

…e purpose of examining the conditions prescribed in clause (c) of sec. 80-IB(10) of the Act. It was further considered that the Hon’ble Madras High Court has affirmed this view in a subsequent decision in the case of CIT vs. Sanghvi & Doshi Enterprises (2013) 255 CTR 156 (Mad.). Further the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Gopalan Enterprises (cited supra) in similar circumstances, has held that private terrace portion cannot be taken into consideration for calculating the built-up area and has to be excluded. Therefore, we see no reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A) which is in conson…

Sanghvi & Doshi Enterprise v. ITO: 141 TTJ I (Chennai 'A')(TM) (255 CTR 156) — Cited in 8 Judgments | BharatTax