following decisions:
a. Lokhandwala Construction Industries Ltd. [260 ITR 579].
b. Lodha Developers Ltd. [143 Taxmann.com 442 (Mum)]
c. Sanathnagar Enterprise Ltd. [139 Taxmann ... 2023 & 2011/PUN/2024
iii) `DCIT vs. Lodha Developers Ltd. (2022) 143 taxmann.com 442 (Mumbai -
Trib.)
35. We have heard the rival arguments
following decisions:
a. Lokhandwala Construction Industries Ltd. [260 ITR 579].
b. Lodha Developers Ltd. [143 Taxmann.com 442 (Mum)]
c. Sanathnagar Enterprise Ltd. [139 Taxmann ... 2023 & 2011/PUN/2024
iii) `DCIT vs. Lodha Developers Ltd. (2022) 143 taxmann.com 442 (Mumbai -
Trib.)
35. We have heard the rival arguments
Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd. vide ITA No.2147/MUM/2018 and
Lodha Developers Ltd vs. DCIT vide ITA No.2348/MUM/2018, for assessment
year ... case of DCIT vs. M/s. Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd. and Lodha
Developers Ltd vs. DCIT (supra) where the delay in filing of the return
purchased new residential property vide
agreement dated 19-01-2013 from Lodha Developers in housing project
"Lodha Belmond". The developers of the project
Anil Bansilal Lodha, Nashik vs Assessee on 30 January, 2012
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
PUNE BENCH "B", PUNE
BEFORE SHRI ... Lodha & Co. Besides, the assessee is also
engaged in the business of land developers and builders. A search action
2
under section
Chandrakant Swaroopchand Lodha (Huf) , ... vs Department Of Income Tax on 23 December, 2003
IN THE
Respondent
PAN : AAGFK5996F
अपीलाथ क ओर से / Appellant by : Shri Rishi V. Lodha
यथ क ओर से / Respondent by : Shri Suhas Kulkarni
सन
ु वाई ... partnership firm stated to be engaged in the
business as Builder and Developer. Assessee filed its return of
income
ratio laid down by Pune Bench of Tribunal in Sanjog Tarachand Lodha Vs. ITO
in ITA Nos.688 & 689/PN/2014, relating to assessment ... ratios
laid down by Mumbai Bench of Tribunal in M/s. Parinee Developers Pvt. Ltd.
Vs. ACIT in ITA No.6772/M/2013 , relating
been correctly drawn.
9
ITA.No.20/PUN/2015 Shri Chandrakant
S. Lodha (HUF), Nashik.
10.2. All these assessee's averments hardly deserve ... presumption of correctness which hardly stands rebutted by the
above stated subsequent developments. We accordingly affirm this
excess stock addition
Developers,, Pune vs Assessee on 29 December, 2014
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
PUNE BENCH "A", PUNE
BEFORE: SHRI G.S. PANNU ... 1182/PN/2012)
Assessment Year : 2005-06
M/s. J.M.D. Developers, Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax,
'Bhagya' First Floor, Circle
