Sigma Construction v. ITO

59 SOT 83Income Tax Appellate Tribunal#14348 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2017.

Judgments citing Sigma Construction v. ITO

HIGH RISE CONSTRUCTION,NAGPUR vs. I.T.O. WARD 1(5), NAGPUR

In the result this appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 285/NAG/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Jan 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya.

For Appellant: Shri Manoj MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri A.R. Ninawe
Section 250Section 80I

…vinayak Kohinoor Venture vs. Addl.CIT (2014) 97 DTR 68 (Pune) (Trib.). 7 ITA No. 285/Nag/2015. 10. Judgement of ITAT, Nagpur Bench dated 02-01-2013 in ITA No. 04/Nag/2011 in the case of ITO vs. M/s New High Rise Construction. 11. Sigma Constructions vs. ITO 59 SOT 83 (Hyd.Trib.). 12. Judgement of ITAT, Mumbai Bench dated 20-02-2015 in ITA No. 3920-3922/Mum/2012 in the case of U.K. Builders vs. ACIT. 13. Keerthi Estate (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2012) 54 SOT 273. 6. Per contra learned D.R. relied upon the orders of the authorities below. Learned D.R. also placed reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High…

ITO 24(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. KAMALA BROTHERS, MUMBAI

Appeals is dismissed

ITA 925/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble S/Shri Joginder Singh (Jm) & Rajesh Kumar,(Am) आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.108/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10) बनाम/ Kamala Brothers, Income Tax Officer-24(2)(1), C-13, R.No.606, 6Th Fl., Kuber Chambers, Cts 141-A, Vs. Next To Cod, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Dutt Mandir Road, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Malad (E), Bandra (E), Mumbai-400097.. Mumbai-400051. (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Respondent: Shri H M Wanare
Section 143(3)Section 23(1)(a)Section 24

…gh single approval for the whole plot consisting of portion such as 141A, 141B, 141C & 141D. We find that findings given by the Ld. CIT(A), are legally correct. Our view finds support from the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Sigma Construction vs. ITO 59 SOT 83( Hyd) wherein it has been held that where a portion of plot area was earmarked for laying Roads, same should be considered as part of housing project in order to determine the prescribed limit u/s 80IB. Similar view has been taken in the case of Bunty Builders vs ITO 127 ITD 286 (Pune) and Haware Engineers & Builders P. Ltd. v. ACIT 46 SOT 27 (Mum)…

ITO 24(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. KAMALA BROTHERS, MUMBAI

Appeals is dismissed

ITA 5424/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble S/Shri Joginder Singh (Jm) & Rajesh Kumar,(Am) आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.108/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10) बनाम/ Kamala Brothers, Income Tax Officer-24(2)(1), C-13, R.No.606, 6Th Fl., Kuber Chambers, Cts 141-A, Vs. Next To Cod, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Dutt Mandir Road, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Malad (E), Bandra (E), Mumbai-400097.. Mumbai-400051. (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Respondent: Shri H M Wanare
Section 143(3)Section 23(1)(a)Section 24

…gh single approval for the whole plot consisting of portion such as 141A, 141B, 141C & 141D. We find that findings given by the Ld. CIT(A), are legally correct. Our view finds support from the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Sigma Construction vs. ITO 59 SOT 83( Hyd) wherein it has been held that where a portion of plot area was earmarked for laying Roads, same should be considered as part of housing project in order to determine the prescribed limit u/s 80IB. Similar view has been taken in the case of Bunty Builders vs ITO 127 ITD 286 (Pune) and Haware Engineers & Builders P. Ltd. v. ACIT 46 SOT 27 (Mum)…

KAMLA BROTEHRS,MUMBAI vs. ITO RG 24(2)(1), MUMBAI

Appeals is dismissed

ITA 108/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble S/Shri Joginder Singh (Jm) & Rajesh Kumar,(Am) आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.108/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10) बनाम/ Kamala Brothers, Income Tax Officer-24(2)(1), C-13, R.No.606, 6Th Fl., Kuber Chambers, Cts 141-A, Vs. Next To Cod, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Dutt Mandir Road, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Malad (E), Bandra (E), Mumbai-400097.. Mumbai-400051. (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Respondent: Shri H M Wanare
Section 143(3)Section 23(1)(a)Section 24

…gh single approval for the whole plot consisting of portion such as 141A, 141B, 141C & 141D. We find that findings given by the Ld. CIT(A), are legally correct. Our view finds support from the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Sigma Construction vs. ITO 59 SOT 83( Hyd) wherein it has been held that where a portion of plot area was earmarked for laying Roads, same should be considered as part of housing project in order to determine the prescribed limit u/s 80IB. Similar view has been taken in the case of Bunty Builders vs ITO 127 ITD 286 (Pune) and Haware Engineers & Builders P. Ltd. v. ACIT 46 SOT 27 (Mum)…

KAMALA BROTHERS,MUMBAI vs. ITO 24(2)1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, and assessee’s appeal as well as and CO filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1160/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2003-04 Kamala Brothers, Ito 24(2)(1) Kuber Chamber, Cts बनाम/ C-13 Bandra Kurla 141-A, Next To Cod, Complex, Bandra(E) Vs. Dutt Mandir Road, Mumbai Malad (E) Mumbai -400097 (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aaafk0111D Assessment Year: 2003-04 Ito 24(2)(1) Kamala Brothers, C-13 Bandra Kurla Kuber Chamber, Cts 141- बनाम/ Complex, Bandra(E) A, Next To Cod, Dutt Vs. Mumbai Mandir Road, Malad (E) Mumbai -400097 (Revenue) (Respondent) P.A. No. Aaafk0111D C.O. No.180/Mum/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1334/Mum/2011) Assessment Year: 2003-04

Section 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 50C

…gh single approval for the whole plot consisting of portion such as 141A, 141B, 141C & 141D. We find that findings given by the Ld. CIT(A), are legally correct. Our view finds support from the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Sigma Construction vs. ITO 59 SOT 83( Hyd) wherein it has been held that where a portion of plot area was earmarked for laying Roads, same should be considered as part of housing project in order to determine the prescribed limit u/s 80IB. Similar view has been taken in the case of Bunty Builders vs ITO 127 ITD 286 (Pune) and Haware Engineers & Builders P. Ltd. v. ACIT 46 SOT 27 (Mum)…

KAMALA BROTHERS,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 24(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, and assessee’s appeal as well as and CO filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1140/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2003-04 Kamala Brothers, Ito 24(2)(1) Kuber Chamber, Cts बनाम/ C-13 Bandra Kurla 141-A, Next To Cod, Complex, Bandra(E) Vs. Dutt Mandir Road, Mumbai Malad (E) Mumbai -400097 (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aaafk0111D Assessment Year: 2003-04 Ito 24(2)(1) Kamala Brothers, C-13 Bandra Kurla Kuber Chamber, Cts 141- बनाम/ Complex, Bandra(E) A, Next To Cod, Dutt Vs. Mumbai Mandir Road, Malad (E) Mumbai -400097 (Revenue) (Respondent) P.A. No. Aaafk0111D C.O. No.180/Mum/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1334/Mum/2011) Assessment Year: 2003-04

Section 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 50C

…gh single approval for the whole plot consisting of portion such as 141A, 141B, 141C & 141D. We find that findings given by the Ld. CIT(A), are legally correct. Our view finds support from the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Sigma Construction vs. ITO 59 SOT 83( Hyd) wherein it has been held that where a portion of plot area was earmarked for laying Roads, same should be considered as part of housing project in order to determine the prescribed limit u/s 80IB. Similar view has been taken in the case of Bunty Builders vs ITO 127 ITD 286 (Pune) and Haware Engineers & Builders P. Ltd. v. ACIT 46 SOT 27 (Mum)…

KAMALA BROTHERS,MUMBAI vs. ITO 24(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, and assessee’s appeal as well as and CO filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1139/MUM/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2003-04 Kamala Brothers, Ito 24(2)(1) Kuber Chamber, Cts बनाम/ C-13 Bandra Kurla 141-A, Next To Cod, Complex, Bandra(E) Vs. Dutt Mandir Road, Mumbai Malad (E) Mumbai -400097 (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aaafk0111D Assessment Year: 2003-04 Ito 24(2)(1) Kamala Brothers, C-13 Bandra Kurla Kuber Chamber, Cts 141- बनाम/ Complex, Bandra(E) A, Next To Cod, Dutt Vs. Mumbai Mandir Road, Malad (E) Mumbai -400097 (Revenue) (Respondent) P.A. No. Aaafk0111D C.O. No.180/Mum/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1334/Mum/2011) Assessment Year: 2003-04

Section 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 50C

…gh single approval for the whole plot consisting of portion such as 141A, 141B, 141C & 141D. We find that findings given by the Ld. CIT(A), are legally correct. Our view finds support from the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Sigma Construction vs. ITO 59 SOT 83( Hyd) wherein it has been held that where a portion of plot area was earmarked for laying Roads, same should be considered as part of housing project in order to determine the prescribed limit u/s 80IB. Similar view has been taken in the case of Bunty Builders vs ITO 127 ITD 286 (Pune) and Haware Engineers & Builders P. Ltd. v. ACIT 46 SOT 27 (Mum)…

Sigma Construction v. ITO (59 SOT 83) — Cited in 7 Judgments | BharatTax