Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.25 seconds)
Ekta Sankalp Develop[Ers, Mumbai vs Assessee on 3 September, 2012 cites

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S. Bengal Ambuja Housing Development ... on 16 December, 2008

"48. I am only concerned of the binding effect of the judgment of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bengal Ambuja Housing Development Ltd. In the light of the discussion made above, I am of the considered opinion that I should be lead by the judgment of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court, which is a constitutional and a court of law. As there is no direct decision of the jurisdictional High Court still available on the subject, l finds it my duty to follow the judgment of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court. I do not think 'it as a good judicial behavior to dwell upon the technicalities of jurisdiction and ignore the judgment of a competent constitutional Court. So long as there is no decision by my jurisdictional High Court, I am immediately bound by the judgment of any other High Court available to me, directly on the subject.
Calcutta High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 16 - P C Ghosh - Full Document

Bajaj Tempo Ltd. Bombay vs Commissioner Of Income Tax,Bombay ... on 24 April, 1992

"22 it is apparent from the perusal of section 80IB(10) that this section has been enacted with a view to provide incentive for businessmen to undertake construction of residential accommodation for smaller residential units and the deduction is intended to be restricted to the profit derived from the construction of smaller units and not from larger residential units. Though the A.O. has denied the claim of the assessee observing that larger units were also constructed by the assessee, at the same time, it is also a fact on record that the assessee had claimed deduction only on account Of smaller residential units which were fulfilling all the conditions as contained in section 8O IB(10) and the same has not been disputed by the A.O. also. We have also noted down the fact that even the provision laid down In section 80IB(10) does not speak regarding such denial of deduction in case of profit from a housing complex containing both the smaller and larger residential units and since the assessee has only claimed deduction on account of smaller qualifying units, by fulfilling all the conditions as laid down under section 8 ITA No.3276/Mum/2010 Assessment Year: 2007-08 801B(10), the denial of claim by the assessee is on account of rather restricted and narrow interpretation of provisions of clause (c) of section 80IB(10)while coming to such conclusion, we also find support from the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Bajaj Tempo Ltd (supra) wherein it was held that provisions should be interpreted liberally and since in the present case also, the assessee by claiming pro-rata income on qualifying units has complied with all the provisions as contained iii the said Section, in our considered opinion, such claim of the assessee was rightly allowed by the ld. CIT(A) by reversing the order of AO."
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 590 - R M Sahai - Full Document

Saroj Sales Organisation vs Income Tax Officer on 24 January, 2008

Thus, respectfully following the above judgments of the various ITAT and Courts and particularly the jurisdictional ITAT in the case of Saroj Sales Organisation (supra), I hold that assessee is entitled for deduction under section 80IB on pro-rata basis. The A.O. is therefore, directed to allow the deduction under section 80IB(10) on pro-rata basis as discussed above. This ground of appeal is allowed."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 9 - Cited by 81 - Full Document
1