Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.33 seconds)
Documents citing Utv Software Communications Pvt. Ltd, ... vs Acit Cir 16(1) , Mumbai on 22 April, 2022

Bla Power Pvt.Ltd, Mumbai vs Pr. Commm Of Income Tax-3, Mumbai on 28 February, 2023

ITA no.1180/Mum./2022 decision of coordinate bench of the Tribunal in Sify Software Ltd. Vs ACIT, [2017] 80 Taxmann.com 273 (Chennai-Trib.). From the perusal of the decisions, we find that in the facts before the Hon'ble Courts either the question raised was not responded to by some explanation or no query was raised during the assessment proceedings. However, such is not the facts of the present case as is evident from the notices issued by the Assessing Officer and the reply filed by the assessee. Therefore, the decisions relied upon by the learned DR are factually distinguishable.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Acit 14(1)(2), Mumbai vs Bombay Footwear Private Limited, ... on 12 December, 2024

3. Sify Software Limited vs. ACIT, 80 taxmann.com 273 (Chennai-Trib.) The ld. DR submitted that the AO while completing the assessment has applied incorrect provisions of law following the earlier assessment orders. The AO without conducting independent enquiry in the impugned assessment year was carried away with the findings in the preceding assessment year, wrong presentation of facts and wrong claim made by the assessee. The development agreement dated 21.09.2010 is in fact a joint development agreement between the assessee and Godrej Properties Limited. This fact is evident from the profit sharing model. As soon as land is pooled in a project developed jointly, the capital asset becomes business asset. The land owned by the assessee on which a housing project is developed by Godrej Properties Limited is not an outright sale of land. The sale is that of development rights as per the agreement. This itself shows that the assessee is a co-developer and is sharing risk. The mode of compensation is profit sharing of revenue from complete household units constructed on the land. The revenue from sale includes value of land and development charges. Thus, the consideration received on sale of flats includes both the components.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bombay Footwear Private ... vs Acit 14(1)(2), Mumbai on 12 December, 2024

3. Sify Software Limited vs. ACIT, 80 taxmann.com 273 (Chennai-Trib.) The ld. DR submitted that the AO while completing the assessment has applied incorrect provisions of law following the earlier assessment orders. The AO without conducting independent enquiry in the impugned assessment year was carried away with the findings in the preceding assessment year, wrong presentation of facts and wrong claim made by the assessee. The development agreement dated 21.09.2010 is in fact a joint development agreement between the assessee and Godrej Properties Limited. This fact is evident from the profit sharing model. As soon as land is pooled in a project developed jointly, the capital asset becomes business asset. The land owned by the assessee on which a housing project is developed by Godrej Properties Limited is not an outright sale of land. The sale is that of development rights as per the agreement. This itself shows that the assessee is a co-developer and is sharing risk. The mode of compensation is profit sharing of revenue from complete household units constructed on the land. The revenue from sale includes value of land and development charges. Thus, the consideration received on sale of flats includes both the components.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1