THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT. LTD.,

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

house property?” 5. Briefly stated, the facts are that the assessee is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business of development of properties, construction and engineering activities and such other activities in relation to development of properties. One Mr.Yunus Zia, Mr.Ziaulla Sheriff and M/s.India Builders Corporation were subjected to a search operation

THE COMMISIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT LTD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

house property?” 5. Briefly stated, the facts are that the assessee is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business of development of properties, construction and engineering activities and such other activities in relation to development of properties. One Mr.Yunus Zia, Mr.Ziaulla Sheriff and M/s.India Builders Corporation were subjected to a search operation

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

153C of the Act. The legal position has been summarized in Kabul Chawla supra as under: "37. On a conspectus of Section 153A(1) of the Act, read with the provisos thereto, and in the light of the law explained in the aforementioned decisions, the legal position that emerges is as under: i. Once a search takes place under Section

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

153C of the Act. The legal position has been summarized in Kabul Chawla supra as under: "37. On a conspectus of Section 153A(1) of the Act, read with the provisos thereto, and in the light of the law explained in the aforementioned decisions, the legal position that emerges is as under: i. Once a search takes place under Section

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

153C of the Act. The legal position has been summarized in Kabul Chawla supra as under: "37. On a conspectus of Section 153A(1) of the Act, read with the provisos thereto, and in the light of the law explained in the aforementioned decisions, the legal position that emerges is as under: i. Once a search takes place under Section

THE PR. COMMISIONER INCOME TAX vs. M/S. GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

153C of the Act. The legal position has been summarized in Kabul Chawla supra as under: "37. On a conspectus of Section 153A(1) of the Act, read with the provisos thereto, and in the light of the law explained in the aforementioned decisions, the legal position that emerges is as under: i. Once a search takes place under Section

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

153C of the Act. The legal position has been summarized in Kabul Chawla supra as under: "37. On a conspectus of Section 153A(1) of the Act, read with the provisos thereto, and in the light of the law explained in the aforementioned decisions, the legal position that emerges is as under: i. Once a search takes place under Section

THE PR. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

153C of the Act. The legal position has been summarized in Kabul Chawla supra as under: "37. On a conspectus of Section 153A(1) of the Act, read with the provisos thereto, and in the light of the law explained in the aforementioned decisions, the legal position that emerges is as under: i. Once a search takes place under Section

THE PR. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

153C of the Act. The legal position has been summarized in Kabul Chawla supra as under: "37. On a conspectus of Section 153A(1) of the Act, read with the provisos thereto, and in the light of the law explained in the aforementioned decisions, the legal position that emerges is as under: i. Once a search takes place under Section

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

153C of the Act. The legal position has been summarized in Kabul Chawla supra as under: "37. On a conspectus of Section 153A(1) of the Act, read with the provisos thereto, and in the light of the law explained in the aforementioned decisions, the legal position that emerges is as under: i. Once a search takes place under Section

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) vs. M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT. LTD.,

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

153C of the Act. The legal position has been summarized in Kabul Chawla supra as under: "37. On a conspectus of Section 153A(1) of the Act, read with the provisos thereto, and in the light of the law explained in the aforementioned decisions, the legal position that emerges is as under: i. Once a search takes place under Section

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

153C of the Act. The legal position has been summarized in Kabul Chawla supra as under: "37. On a conspectus of Section 153A(1) of the Act, read with the provisos thereto, and in the light of the law explained in the aforementioned decisions, the legal position that emerges is as under: i. Once a search takes place under Section

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S BRIGADE ENTERPRISES LTD

In the result, we do not find any merit in this

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

PROPERTY DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.’, TAX CASE (APPEAL) NO.56/2015 DATED 09.03.2015. We respectfully concur with the view taken by the Bombay as well as Chennai High Courts. In the instant case, the housing project of the assessee was approved in respect of an area of 48,939 square feet, which is more than one acre i.e., 43,500 square feet, therefore

THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S MAHAVEER TUSCAN

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

PROPERTY DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.’, TAX CASE (APPEAL) NO.56/2015 DATED 09.03.2015. We respectfully concur with the view taken by the Bombay as well as Chennai High Courts. In the instant case, the housing project of the assessee was approved in respect of an area of 48,939 square feet, which is more than one acre i.e., 43,500 square feet, therefore