Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 29 (0.84 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Income Tax-I vs Chd Developers Ltd. on 22 January, 2014

Astavinayaka Developers, Thane vs Department Of Income Tax on 2 March, 2016

6. Having heard rival submissions, we are of the view that there is no infirmity in the decision rendered by Ld CIT(A) on this issue. The fact that the assessee has applied for completion certificate in the month of February, 2008 is undisputed. The letters written by the local authority to the assessing officer shows that they have withheld the completion certificate only for want of ULC clearance certificate, that too for one building only. Further the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held in the case of CIT Vs. CHD Developers Ltd (supra) that the Explanation to sec. 80IB(10)(a) inserted with effect from 1.4.2005 by Finance (No.2) Act, 2004 providing for submission of completion certificate shall not be applicable to projects approved prior to 1.4.2005. Thus, on facts, it is seen that the assessee has completed the construction prior to 31.3.2008 and on legal point also, the Explanation to sec. 80IB(10)(a) cannot be applied to the assessee. Accordingly, we uphold the order of Ld CIT(A) on this issue.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Income-Tax Officer,, vs M/S. Pentagon Developers,, Pune on 20 July, 2018

In all the three decisions on which reliance has been placed by the ld. AR i.e. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. CHD Developers Ltd. (supra), Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Hindustan Samuh Awas Ltd. (supra) and Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Tarnetar Corporation (supra) the common factor is, the assessee in the respective cases after completion of housing project had applied to the local authority for issuance of completion/occupation certificate well in time. The Hon‟ble High Courts in the backdrop of this fact held that merely for the reason, the local authorities have failed to issue completion/occupation certificate within the reasonable time, the benefit of deduction u/s. 80IB(10) cannot be denied to the assessee, who otherwise have completed the housing project and have applied for approval well before the due date.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Addl.Cit, Special Range, Ghaziabad vs Shipra Estate Ltd., Ghaziabad on 6 August, 2021

Such communication dated 3.09.2015 was also submitted. He further stated that before 31.03.2012 i.e. the cut-off date 296 flats were already registered in favour of buyers by the GDA. This itself shows that the project was in fact completed before the cut-off date. He further referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. CHD Developers Ltd. in 362 ITR 177 (Del.) He specifically referred to Para No. 7 wherein para 8.16 identical facts were considered. He also referred to para No. 9 of that decision. He referred to para No. 10 of that decision wherein the claim of the assessee was allowed following the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court and Hon'ble Karnataka High Court. He further referred to a decision from paper book where several decisions of the co-ordinate bench were relied upon.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 13 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

M/S Sahara India Sahkari Awas Samiti ... vs Dcit, New Delhi on 7 January, 2022

In view of the aforesaid, remanding the matter to the file of the assessing officer for de novo adjudication, contrary to the well settled legal position in light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Majestic Developers (supra) and the binding decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CHD Developers Ltd (supra) constitutes mistake apparent from the record requiring rectification under section 254(2) of the Act, as per law laid down by the apex Court in the case of ACIT v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd.: 305 ITR 227 (SC).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next