Acit (Cir.) - 6(1)(2), Mumbai vs Bhandar Power Ltd., Mumbai on 31 May, 2019
b) CIT Vs Fateh Granite (P) Ltd 314 ITR 32 (Bom)
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 2 of 2 (0.36 seconds)Documents citing
The Principal Commissioner Of Income ... vs Varmora Granito P. Ltd. on 8 March, 2019
Acit Central Circle 1(10, Pune vs M/S P3 Properties, Pune on 8 February, 2023
12. It is also settled position of law that the onus of satisfying the
conditions precedent for availing the benefit of deduction u/s 80IB
10
ITA No.41/PUN/2020
always lie upon an assessee, who is claiming the benefit of
deduction. In the present case, as stated by us supra, the assessee
had failed to prove that the permissions for construction of the
housing project were obtained on 12.09.2005 for the first time
except harping on that the permissions for obtain for the first time
only on 12.09.2005. As observed by us in the foregoing paragraphs,
even the permissions obtained on 12.09.2005 contained a reference
to the original permission obtained on 01.07.2003, which clearly
establishes that the approvals for building permission were obtained
for first time only on 01.07.2003. The reliance placed by the ld.
CIT(A) on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case
of CIT vs. Vandana Properties, 353 ITR 36 (Bombay) and the
decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs.
Voora Properties (P) Ltd., 373 ITR 317 (Madras) is misplaced,
inasmuch as, the ratio laid down in those cases has no application to
the facts of the present case.
1