Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 65 (0.60 seconds)
Documents citing Radhe Developers And Ors. vs Income Tax Officer And Ors. on 29 June, 2007

Shreenathji Corporation, Ahmedabad vs Department Of Income Tax on 20 January, 2016

Thus, appellant in present case has acquired dominant control over the land and as per banakhat agreement entered with society; developer was bound to pay amount for acquiring the land irrespective of the fact whether it is able to sell the units. Possession of the land was also given to appellant developer and risks associated with housing project were borne by appellant. It is added that the appellant has not earned remuneration at fixed rate. On the main issue of ownership of land and approval being in the name of landowner for claim of deduction u/s.80IB(10) it is seen that although, ITA No.1870 /Ahd/2011 ITO vs. M/s.Shreenathji Corporation Asst.Year - 2008-09 -5- the issue was decided in favour of the appellant and against revenue by the order of the Jurisdictional ITAT, in the case of Radhe Developers vs ITO ward 3(2) Baroda No.2482/Ahd/2006 A bench Ahmedabad, however the decision was partly modified by the subsequent decision in the case of ITO vs. Shakti Corporation ITA No.1503/Ahd/2008 dated 07/11/2008 wherein, the Hon'ble ITAT has indicated that the benefit under 80IB(10) would be available if the developer has dominant control over the project and has developed the land as its own cost and risk and the benefit would be denied if the assessee had entered into an agreement for a fixed remuneration as a contractor to construct or develop the project on behalf of the land owner.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Krishna Developers, Mumbai vs Assessee on 29 May, 2012

We also hold that inference drawn by the AO that assessee only executes works contract and is not a developer is also not based on facts of the case before us. We hold that the case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Radhe Developers (supra). Hence, we hold that there is no infirmity in the order of ld CIT(A). Therefore, we uphold the order of ld CIT(A) by rejecting the ground of appeal taken by the department.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 5 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Abhay Associates, Baroda vs Department Of Income Tax on 24 May, 2012

8. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the material available on record and examined the Sale Cum Development Agreement furnished by the appellant. From the documents it ITA No.2552/Ahd/2010 (AY: 2007-08) 4 ITO Ward -5 (2)Baroda Vs M/s. Abhay Associates emerges that the assessee had made an agreement for purchase of the land with the land owner and undertook to make complete payment within three years from the date of the execution of the agreement. Further, from the facts it is apparent as found by the learned CIT(A) that for development of the entire project the assessee had undertaken the entire risk and reward and stood in a position as that of the developer. Therefore, the learned CIT(A) had rightly relied on the decision rendered in the case (1) Radhe Developers Vs ITO, (2) ITO vs M/s. Shakti Corporation (3) Faqir Chand Fulati Vs Uppal Agencies Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. and allowed the deduction u/s 80IB (10) of the Act for Rs.14,41,999/-. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that no interference with the decision of the learned CIT(A) is required to be made and the decision rendered by the learned CIT(A) deserves to be confirmed. It is ordered accordingly.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Siddharth Enterprises,, Baroda vs Department Of Income Tax on 7 November, 2008

"4.3 I have carefully examined the facts of the case and perused the arguments of the AO. The issue of deduction u/s 80IB(10) was decided in favor of the appellant and against revenue by the order of the Jurisdictional ITAT, in the case of Radhe Developers vs. ITO Ward 392), Baroda, No.2482/Ahd/2006 A Bench Ahmedabad, however, the decision was partly modified by the subsequent decision in the case of ITO vs. M/s Shakti Corporation ITA No.1503/Ahd/2008 dated 7/11/2008 wherein, the Hon. ITAT has indicated that the benefit under 80IB(10) would be available if the developer has dominant control over the project and has developed the land at its own cost and risk and the benefit would be denied if the assessee had entered into an agreement for a fixed remuneration as a contractor to construct or develop the project on behalf of the land owner. The AO is accordingly, directed to verify the agreement and other details in the light of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Shakti Developers. The ground is allowed subject to verification."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Siddharth Enterprises,, Baroda vs Department Of Income Tax

"4.3 I have carefully examined the facts of the case, submissions of the appellant and perused the arguments of the Assessing Officer. On the main issue of deduction u/s. 80IB(10), it is seen that although, the issue was decided in favour of the appellant and against revenue by the order of the jurisdictional ITAT, in the case of Radhe Developers vs ITO ward 3(2) Baroda No 2482/Ahd/2006 A bench Ahmedabad, however the decision was partly modified by the subsequent decision in the case of ITO vs M/S. Shakti Corporation ITA No. 1503/AHD/2008 dated 07/11/2008 wherein, the Hon'ble ITAT has indicated that the benefit under 80IB(10) would be available if the developer has dominant control over the project and has developed the land at its own cost and I T A No . 1 52 9 /A h d/ 2 01 0 A . Y. 20 0 7- 0 8 Page 4 risk and the benefit would be denied if the assessee had entered into an agreement for a fixed remuneration as a contractor to construct or devlop the project on behalf of the land owner.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shreeji Developers, Baroda vs Department Of Income Tax

The decision in the case of Radhe Developers (supra) has not dealt with such situation. The proposition of law laid down in the case of Radhe Developers cannot be applied universally without looking into the development agreement entered into by the Developer along with the landowner. In the case of Shakti Corporation since the assessee has filed copy of the development agreement and crux of the agreement is that the assessee has purchased the land and has developed the housing project at its own, therefore, we are of the view that the assessee will be entitled for the deduction u/s 80IB(10).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 50 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shree Laxmi Developers, Baroda vs Department Of Income Tax

13 We have also gone through the decision in the case of Radhe Developers (supra) on which the learned Senior Counsel has heavily relied. We find that the Tribunal in that decision although dealt with 45 appeals of different assessees but has dealt with the facts relating to Radhe Developers in ITA No.2482/Ahd/2006. The facts in that case as are appearing are as under:
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 40 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sitaram Developers, Baroda vs Department Of Income Tax

13 We have also gone through the decision in the case of Radhe Developers (supra) on which the learned Senior Counsel has heavily relied. We find that the Tribunal in that decision although dealt with 45 appeals of different assessees but has dealt with the facts relating to Radhe Developers in ITA No.2482/Ahd/2006. The facts in that case as are appearing are as under:
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 40 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 Next