Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.37 seconds)Section 80IAB in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 115JB in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Section 51 in The Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
Section 22 in The Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
Section 27 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income Tax-I vs M/S Reliance Energy Ltd (Formerly Bses ... on 28 April, 2021
The lease rental income, on the
lease of the house property thereto, would thus, in our view, notwithstanding
the use of the words 'profits and gains' and 'business' in section 80-IAB(1),
qualify to be eligible for deduction there-under. That is, the lease rental is
within the contemplation of the profits derived by a developer of a SEZ from
the 'business' of developing it, eligible for deduction u/s. 80-IAB. It is in fact
this that forms the basis of the decisions in Coimbatore Hitech Infrastructure
(P.) Ltd. (supra) and Global Tech Park Pvt. Ltd. (supra). The head of income
under which the said income is assessable, which is on the basis of the
source - from amongst the specified sources under the Act, most appropriate
for the said income, so that it is not assessable as business income but as
20
ITA Nos.8524 to 8526/Del./2019
income from house property, would not be a limiting or debilitating factor. We
decide accordingly, and the assessee succeeds qua it's alternate ground, i.e.,
in principle."
Section 90 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Commissioner Of Income Tax Delhi-Iv vs Dlf Commercial Developers Limited on 11 July, 2013
"That the matter needs to be examined with reference to case
records and paperbook from field formation which have been
requested for submitting before Hon'ble ITAT and are awaited for
effective representation on varied GOA raised by Revenue in light
of decision of Delhi High Court in 92 taxmann.com 10 in the case of
CIT vs DLF Commercial Developers dated 22.02.2018 (ITA
507/2014,563/2015,610/2017) wherein it is stated that " ... 10.
This Court is of the opinion that the ITAT's decision merely
reproduced the CIT(A)'s judgment and has not analysed
independently, in either of the AYs, the applicability of Section
80IAB towards the deductions claimed in the light of the
transactions reported and the documents disclosed. Furthermore,
those facts have also to be analysed in the light of the provisions of
SEZ Act, 2005, which the ITAT has not independently done. For
these reasons, the impugned orders of the ITAT are set-aside and
are remitted for fresh consideration by the ITAT in accordance with
law. All rights and contentions of the parties are reserved ... "