Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (3.45 seconds)
Documents citing Income Tax Officer vs Satyanarayan Agarwal on 30 October, 2007

Assistant Commissioner Of ... vs Sonalty Realty,, Pune on 13 January, 2017

He had also relied on decision of Pune Tribunal in the case of ITO Vs. Satyanarayan Ramswaroop Agarwal reported in (2014) 163 TTJ 0017 (Pune) and other decisions. He has further given a finding that the construction of the 'Park Land' which was sanctioned on 04.08.2006 was subsequently revised and has been totally completed before 31.03.2012 and in such a situation, the claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the assessee was allowable on a proportionate basis. With respect to the violation of provisions of the Act on account of the area of 5 Row Houses being in excess of 1500 Sq.Ft., he has given a finding that Government Approved Valuer had taken the outer 17 ITA No.1837/PUN/2014 AY.No.2010-11 measurement of the Row Houses and calculated the area which is contrary to the definition contained in Sec.80IB(14)(a).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Vrandawan Construction Company, ... vs The Dy. Cit Circle-1, Bhopal on 13 January, 2022

• CIT v/s K K Enterprises 13 DTR (Raj) 289 • ITO v/s Satyanarayan Agarwal 112 TTJ (Jd) 717 • Kamal Kishore Chandok v/s ITO 103 TTJ (Jd) 843 • JaiMarwar co. Pvt. Ltd. v/s ACIT 79 TTJ (Jd) 178 • ITO v/s Harley Street pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2010) 38 SOT 486 (Ahd) Nevertheless, in view of the above, facts and data do not support the imaginative high market value derived by ld AO @ Rs 3 crore per acre based on some 'dumb document' which is not sustainable on facts and in law. ld AO has failed to substantiate that actually any land in Damkheda village was purchased/sold @ of Rs. 3 crore per acre during the relevant period except relying on some proposed JV agreements which are relating to sale of land on later date."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Indore Cites 68 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 Next