Second Income-Tax Officer vs Bisleri (I) (P.) Ltd. on 31 January, 1985
import obligations, and (iii) compensation paid for deviation from the original sanction of the plan for a building and accepting the revised plan of construction
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 660 (1.01 seconds)Dcit Cc 3(4) Cen Rg 3, Mumbai vs Jivesh Developers & Properties P. Ltd, ... on 28 March, 2018
found indicating the fact that the assessee has constructed the housing
project deviating from the approved plan but the statements recorded
from the architect ... having found that the assessee has constructed the building as per the
unapproved plan by deviating from the plan approved by the BMC,
deduction under
Radhabalabh Silk Mills (P) Ltd. vs Dy. Cit on 16 January, 2006
Section by providing that instead of requiring demolition or alteration of the building not conforming to the sanction or the bye-laws, the NDMC might ... matter of ex post facto sanction of a building constructed in deviation of a sanctioned plan or where the sanction had lapsed. The ex post
Himanshu J Trivedi, Mumbai vs Ito 16(2)(3), Mumbai on 21 December, 2016
building after its
completion in the year 1993. Therefore, the allegation of the
Department that expenditure was incurred for extension of the hotel
building ... evident that the construction of the building is up to the first
floor and there is no deviation to the approved plan. Moreover
Gac Constructions , Mumbai vs Department Of Income Tax on 19 October, 2006
merger of two flats on
the ground floor of 'E' building. Thus, no fault can be found with the
decision of the Tribunal ... respect to the first building, the assessee is entitled for exemption under
section 80IB(10) with respect to the first building as claimed
Narendra G. Kanakia ( Huf), Mumbai vs Department Of Income Tax on 10 April, 2013
rate of three
instance, is based on mere fact that the said building was similar in
number of.- floors and similar size of the flat ... deviation. Hence only one instance cannot be taken as gospel
truth, merely due to reason that the number of floors 0f the building and
flat
Ito 9(1)(4), Mumbai vs A. Surti Developers P.Ltd, Mumbai on 15 March, 2019
buildings. These
developments showed that the viability of the building projects
at Vile Parle and Jogeshwari and profitability therefrom were
quite doubtful and uncertain. Meanwhile ... fully justified
in deviating from the method of estimating income followed by
it and not estimating any income from the building projects
during the year
M/S. J.K. Footwear Pvt. Ltd. , Mumbai vs Ito -10(2)(1), Mumbai on 3 May, 2021
material on record.
Undisputedly, the assessee has wrongly claimed depreciation on the building let out
by it. However, the facts on record reveal that similar ... reason for claiming
depreciation on building being pari materia in the impugned assessment years, we
find no reason to deviate from the view already taken
Tata Consultancy Services Ltd, Mumbai vs Asst Cit Ltu-1, Mumbai on 6 April, 2022
learned D.R. could not show us any reason to deviate from the
aforesaid order and no change in facts and law was alleged ... activities and campaigns etc. and thus the payment was towards the brand
building which will give enduring benefit to the assessee. The Assessing
Officer, accordingly
Nahar Enterprises, Mumbai vs Dcit (Osd) Cen Rg 7, Mumbai on 7 April, 2017
Nahar Enterprises, Mumbai vs Dcit (Osd) Cen Rg 7, Mumbai on 7 April, 2017
आयकर