Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.50 seconds)The Commissioner Of Income Tax-I vs Radhe Developers - Opponent(S) on 13 December, 2011
In such a situation, following the decision of Hon'ble
Gujarat High Court in case of CIT vs. Radhe Developers (supra), we are of the
view that assessee is eligible for deduction u/s.80IB(10) of the Act. As far as the
denial on deduction by ld. CIT(A) on the ground that BU permission from local
authorities were not obtained, it is an undisputed fact that the original permission
for the development of the housing project was received on 28.03.2003 and
subsequently the revised permission was received on 01.04.2004. Explanation (i)
below Section 80IB(10) of the Act states that in a case where the approval in
respect of the housing project is obtained more than once, such housing project
shall be deemed to have been approved on the date on which the building plan of
such housing project is first approved by the local authority. On considering the
facts of the present case and in light of the aforesaid Explanation to Section
80IB(10) of the Act, in the present case, we are of the view that the housing project
would be deemed to have been approved on 28.03.2003, being the date of original
approval date and at that time the statute did not mandate the requirement of
obtaining BU permission from local authorities.
Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag & ... vs Mst. Katiji & Ors on 19 February, 1987
4.O. Considering the aforesaid principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and
the facts of the case on hand, we are of the view that learned Tribunal ought to have
condoned the delay and ought to have decided and disposed of the appeals on merit
rather than dismissing the same on the ground of limitation
5.0. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, both these appeals succeed
and the impugned common order passed by the ITAT dated 22.3.2013 in ITA Nos. 563
and 564/AHD/2012 with respect to the assessment year 2007-08 and 2008-09 is hereby
quashed and set aside and the delay caused in preferring the respective appeals is hereby
condoned and the matter is remitted to the learned ITAT to decide and dispose of the said
appeals in accordance with law and on merits. With this, both these appeals are allowed
to the aforesaid extent."
Income Tax Officer vs South India Corporation (A) Ltd. (Ito V. ... on 25 July, 1995
Before us,
Revenue has not placed any material on record to point out any distinguishing
feature in the case of Saket Corpn. (supra) nor has pointed out as to how the ratio
of the aforesaid decision rendered by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court would not be
applicable to the facts of present case nor has placed on record any contrary
binding decision. In view of the aforesaid facts, we are of the view that assessee is
eligible for deduction u/s.80IB(10) of the Act and thus allow this ground of
assessee.
Commissioner Income Tax-I vs Chd Developers Ltd. on 22 January, 2014
A.Ys. 2007-08 & 2008-09
decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. CHD Developers
(2014) 362 ITR 177 (Del). Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has upheld the order of
Tribunal by holding that no error was committed by Tribunal in holding that
assessee was entitled to claim deduction u/s.80IB(10) of the Act.
Income Tax Officer vs Saket Corporation....Opponent(S) on 25 March, 2015
We also find that in the case of
ITO vs. Saket Corporation (supra), Revenue had preferred appeal before Hon'ble
High Court for the reason that the Hon'ble ITAT had allowed the appeal of
assessee by holding that when the housing project was approved on 10.03.2004 by
the competent authority, condition for obtaining completion certificate within a
period of 4 years from the date of approval being eligible for deduction
u/s.80IB(10) of the Act was not applicable and therefore assessee was eligible for
deduction u/s.80IB(10) of the Act and for which Hon'ble ITAT had relied on the
13 ITA Nos. 563 & 564/Ahd/2012
.
1