Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 204 (0.76 seconds)
Documents citing The Commissioner Of Income Tax-I vs Radhe Developers - Opponent(S) on 13 December, 2011

Meghal Developers, Bharuch vs Department Of Income Tax on 12 September, 2014

"7. We have considered the rival submissions, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below and the judgments cited before us. First, we decide the appeal filed by the Revenue, i.e. ITA No.1221/Ahd/2012. As per this appeal, the Revenue's challenge is that the ld.CIT(A) was not justified in granting relief to the assessee by following the Tribunal decision rendered in the case of M/s.Shakti Corporation & Others in ITA No.1503/Ahd/2008 dated 07/11/2008. Now the judgement of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court is available on this issue, i.e. the judgement rendered in the case of CIT vs. Radhe Developers (supra). Regarding this judgment of Hon'bleJurisdictional High Court, it was submitted by the ld.DR of the Revenue that this judgment is not applicable because in that judgement of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, it was observed vide paragraph No.31 of the judgement that no provision contained in other related statutes were brought to the notice of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court to demonstrate that ownership of the land would be a condition precedent for developing the housing project. He submitted that in the present case, the Revenue wants to bring this on record that as per "Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976" and the Regulations framed thereunder, it is necessary that ownership of the land is a condition precedent for developing the housing project.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Satsang Developers, Baroda vs Assessee on 23 August, 2013

7. We have considered the rival submissions, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below and the judgments cited before us. First, we decide the appeal filed by the Revenue, i.e. ITA No.1221/Ahd/2012. As per this appeal, the Revenue's challenge is that the ld.CIT(A) was not justified in granting relief to the assessee by following the Tribunal decision rendered in the case of M/s.Shakti Corporation & Others in ITA No.1503/Ahd/2008 dated 07/11/2008. Now the judgement of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court is available on this issue, i.e. the judgement rendered in the case of CIT vs. Radhe Developers (supra). Regarding this judgment of Hon'bleJurisdictional High Court, it was submitted by the ld.DR of the Revenue that this judgment is not applicable because in that judgement of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, it was observed vide paragraph No.31 of the judgement that no provision contained in other related statutes were brought to the notice of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court to demonstrate that ownership of the land would be a condition precedent for developing the housing project. He submitted that in the present case, the Revenue wants to bring this on record that as per "Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976" and the Regulations framed thereunder, it is necessary that ownership of the land is a condition precedent for developing the housing project.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shree Shreyanshnath Developers, ... vs Department Of Income Tax

He should pass a speaking order after examining the complete facts and should give a clear finding as to whether the assessee was taking entire risk and was eligible for entire reward in the facts of the present case, as has been held by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Radhe Developers (supra). He should examine the facts -4- ITA No.3254/Ahd/2010With CO No.243/Ahd/2011 of the present case in the light of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, and then pass necessary orders as per law in the light of the above discussion, after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Pranami Builders, Ahmedabad vs Department Of Income Tax on 2 June, 2016

11. Respectfully following the decision of Hon. Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Radhe Developers (supra) and applying the ratio of the decision to the facts of the case before us, we are of the considered opinion that assessee is a developer of the project and not merely a works contractor and is eligible for deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act at Rs.95,56,579/-. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of ld. CIT(A) and uphold the same. The ground nos. 1 & 2 raised by the Revenue are dismissed."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jayvantsinh N.Vaghela, Ahmedabad vs Assessee on 29 February, 2016

In such a situation, following the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in case of CIT vs. Radhe Developers (supra), we are of the view that assessee is eligible for deduction u/s.80IB(10) of the Act. As far as the denial on deduction by ld. CIT(A) on the ground that BU permission from local authorities were not obtained, it is an undisputed fact that the original permission for the development of the housing project was received on 28.03.2003 and subsequently the revised permission was received on 01.04.2004. Explanation (i) below Section 80IB(10) of the Act states that in a case where the approval in respect of the housing project is obtained more than once, such housing project shall be deemed to have been approved on the date on which the building plan of such housing project is first approved by the local authority. On considering the facts of the present case and in light of the aforesaid Explanation to Section 80IB(10) of the Act, in the present case, we are of the view that the housing project would be deemed to have been approved on 28.03.2003, being the date of original approval date and at that time the statute did not mandate the requirement of obtaining BU permission from local authorities.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vaishali Developers ... vs Income Tax Officer 1 (2), Bhopal on 24 February, 2025

"5. We have heard rival submissions, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. Objection of the A.O. is that the assessee is not undertaking development and construction of housing projects. The assessee is not owner of the land of which project is claimed to have been undertaken. The similar issue was before the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Radhe Developers 341 ITR 403, wherein the Hon'ble High Court was of the view that the ownership of the land is not sine-qua-non for claiming deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act. Therefore, in our considered view, this objection of the A.O. is contrary to the judicial pronouncements cannot be sustained. Further, the A.O's objection that the assessee is merely acting as a contractor to the customer to whom land is independently sold and thereafter construction is being done as per agreement. This issue was examined by the Tribunal in original proceedings, wherein it has been decided in favour of the assessee. There is no change into facts and circumstances. Hence, this objection is also not sustained"
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Indore Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Pratham Developers,, Vadodara vs The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 30 April, 2019

12. During the course of appellate proceedings before us, the ld. counsel has refereed the decision of Hon'ble High Court in the case of Shreenath Developer supra and he has also submitted that CIT(A) has incorrectly disallowed the claim of deduction for the project Pratham Citadel without considering the circumstances under which the assessee was not in a position to utilize the non-utilized FSI of the project. On the other hand, ld. departmental representative has supported the order of assessing officer and in respect of Pratham Citedal he has supported the order of ld. CIT(A).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 19 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next