THE ACIT, CIRCLE-5,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. RAJKAMAL BUILDER INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD,, AHMEDABAD

In the result this ground of appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri (Dr.) Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Roy

disallowed. ITA.No.441/Ahd/2011 and 20 Others Rajkamal Builders Infrastructure P.Ltd. 28 12. Thus, from the evidences available on records conclusively indicate that as far as factual matrix of the cases are concerned, the appellant is a mere contractor w r t work assigned by AMC and other authorities as discussed in above paras and cannot be treated as a developer

M/S. RAJKAMAL BUILDERS INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-5,, AHMEDABAD

In the result this ground of appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri (Dr.) Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Roy

disallowed. ITA.No.441/Ahd/2011 and 20 Others Rajkamal Builders Infrastructure P.Ltd. 28 12. Thus, from the evidences available on records conclusively indicate that as far as factual matrix of the cases are concerned, the appellant is a mere contractor w r t work assigned by AMC and other authorities as discussed in above paras and cannot be treated as a developer

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-5,, AHMEDABAD vs. RAJKAMAL BUILDER INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD,, AHMEDABAD

In the result this ground of appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri (Dr.) Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Roy

disallowed. ITA.No.441/Ahd/2011 and 20 Others Rajkamal Builders Infrastructure P.Ltd. 28 12. Thus, from the evidences available on records conclusively indicate that as far as factual matrix of the cases are concerned, the appellant is a mere contractor w r t work assigned by AMC and other authorities as discussed in above paras and cannot be treated as a developer

M/S. RAJKAMAL BUILDER INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT., CIRCLE-5,, AHMEDABAD

In the result this ground of appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri (Dr.) Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Roy

disallowed. ITA.No.441/Ahd/2011 and 20 Others Rajkamal Builders Infrastructure P.Ltd. 28 12. Thus, from the evidences available on records conclusively indicate that as far as factual matrix of the cases are concerned, the appellant is a mere contractor w r t work assigned by AMC and other authorities as discussed in above paras and cannot be treated as a developer

RAJKAMAL BUILDER INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT.CIT.,(OSD)CIRCLE-5,, AHMEDABAD

In the result this ground of appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri (Dr.) Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Roy

disallowed. ITA.No.441/Ahd/2011 and 20 Others Rajkamal Builders Infrastructure P.Ltd. 28 12. Thus, from the evidences available on records conclusively indicate that as far as factual matrix of the cases are concerned, the appellant is a mere contractor w r t work assigned by AMC and other authorities as discussed in above paras and cannot be treated as a developer

RAJKAMAL BUILDER INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT., CIRCLE-5,, AHMEDABAD

In the result this ground of appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri (Dr.) Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Roy

disallowed. ITA.No.441/Ahd/2011 and 20 Others Rajkamal Builders Infrastructure P.Ltd. 28 12. Thus, from the evidences available on records conclusively indicate that as far as factual matrix of the cases are concerned, the appellant is a mere contractor w r t work assigned by AMC and other authorities as discussed in above paras and cannot be treated as a developer

M/S. RAJKAMAL BUILDERS INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT., CIRCLE-3(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result this ground of appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri (Dr.) Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Roy

disallowed. ITA.No.441/Ahd/2011 and 20 Others Rajkamal Builders Infrastructure P.Ltd. 28 12. Thus, from the evidences available on records conclusively indicate that as far as factual matrix of the cases are concerned, the appellant is a mere contractor w r t work assigned by AMC and other authorities as discussed in above paras and cannot be treated as a developer

M/S. RAJKAMAL BUILDERS INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result this ground of appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri (Dr.) Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Roy

disallowed. ITA.No.441/Ahd/2011 and 20 Others Rajkamal Builders Infrastructure P.Ltd. 28 12. Thus, from the evidences available on records conclusively indicate that as far as factual matrix of the cases are concerned, the appellant is a mere contractor w r t work assigned by AMC and other authorities as discussed in above paras and cannot be treated as a developer

M/S. RAJKAMAL BUILDERS INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result this ground of appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri (Dr.) Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Roy

disallowed. ITA.No.441/Ahd/2011 and 20 Others Rajkamal Builders Infrastructure P.Ltd. 28 12. Thus, from the evidences available on records conclusively indicate that as far as factual matrix of the cases are concerned, the appellant is a mere contractor w r t work assigned by AMC and other authorities as discussed in above paras and cannot be treated as a developer

M/S. RAJKAMAL BUILDERS INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT., CIRCLE-3(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result this ground of appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri (Dr.) Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Roy

disallowed. ITA.No.441/Ahd/2011 and 20 Others Rajkamal Builders Infrastructure P.Ltd. 28 12. Thus, from the evidences available on records conclusively indicate that as far as factual matrix of the cases are concerned, the appellant is a mere contractor w r t work assigned by AMC and other authorities as discussed in above paras and cannot be treated as a developer

M/S. RAJKAMAL BUILDERS INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result this ground of appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri (Dr.) Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Roy

disallowed. ITA.No.441/Ahd/2011 and 20 Others Rajkamal Builders Infrastructure P.Ltd. 28 12. Thus, from the evidences available on records conclusively indicate that as far as factual matrix of the cases are concerned, the appellant is a mere contractor w r t work assigned by AMC and other authorities as discussed in above paras and cannot be treated as a developer

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. RAJKAMAL BUILDERS INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result this ground of appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri (Dr.) Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Roy

disallowed. ITA.No.441/Ahd/2011 and 20 Others Rajkamal Builders Infrastructure P.Ltd. 28 12. Thus, from the evidences available on records conclusively indicate that as far as factual matrix of the cases are concerned, the appellant is a mere contractor w r t work assigned by AMC and other authorities as discussed in above paras and cannot be treated as a developer

M/S. RAJKAMAL BUILDERS INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-5,, AHMEDABAD

In the result this ground of appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri (Dr.) Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Roy

disallowed. ITA.No.441/Ahd/2011 and 20 Others Rajkamal Builders Infrastructure P.Ltd. 28 12. Thus, from the evidences available on records conclusively indicate that as far as factual matrix of the cases are concerned, the appellant is a mere contractor w r t work assigned by AMC and other authorities as discussed in above paras and cannot be treated as a developer

RAJKAMAL BUILDER INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDL.CIT., RANGE-5,, AHMEDABAD

In the result this ground of appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri (Dr.) Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Roy

disallowed. ITA.No.441/Ahd/2011 and 20 Others Rajkamal Builders Infrastructure P.Ltd. 28 12. Thus, from the evidences available on records conclusively indicate that as far as factual matrix of the cases are concerned, the appellant is a mere contractor w r t work assigned by AMC and other authorities as discussed in above paras and cannot be treated as a developer

M/S. RAJKAMAL BUILDERS INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result this ground of appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri (Dr.) Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Roy

disallowed. ITA.No.441/Ahd/2011 and 20 Others Rajkamal Builders Infrastructure P.Ltd. 28 12. Thus, from the evidences available on records conclusively indicate that as far as factual matrix of the cases are concerned, the appellant is a mere contractor w r t work assigned by AMC and other authorities as discussed in above paras and cannot be treated as a developer

RAJKAMAL BUILDER INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT., CIRCLE-5,, AHMEDABAD

In the result this ground of appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri (Dr.) Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Roy

disallowed. ITA.No.441/Ahd/2011 and 20 Others Rajkamal Builders Infrastructure P.Ltd. 28 12. Thus, from the evidences available on records conclusively indicate that as far as factual matrix of the cases are concerned, the appellant is a mere contractor w r t work assigned by AMC and other authorities as discussed in above paras and cannot be treated as a developer

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-5,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. RAJKAMAL BUILDER INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD,, AHMEDABAD

In the result this ground of appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri (Dr.) Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Roy

disallowed. ITA.No.441/Ahd/2011 and 20 Others Rajkamal Builders Infrastructure P.Ltd. 28 12. Thus, from the evidences available on records conclusively indicate that as far as factual matrix of the cases are concerned, the appellant is a mere contractor w r t work assigned by AMC and other authorities as discussed in above paras and cannot be treated as a developer

THE ACIT.(OSD), CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. KHURANA ENGINEERING LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Roya.Y. 2007-08

disallowance , and consequently deduction under section 80IA(4) will also go up . The ld. Sr. DR, Shri Chetram Meena submitted that this contention raised by the ld. Senior Advocate is not raised in the grounds of CO filed by the assessee with ITAT , that the amount added to the income of the assessee will lead to the increase in deduction