Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Pune Versus M/s. A.V. Bhat Developers

2016 (10) TMI 633 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

Claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) - housing property - Revenue contended that the project which was approved in 2003 was the same as was approved in 19th January, 2005. Therefore, the CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal were not correct in holding that the two projects were different and that the approval obtained on 19th January, 2005 was the approval obtained on a project different from that obtained on 2nd November, 2003 - Held that:- We find that this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Va .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

oes not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained. - Income Tax Appeal No. 691 of 2014 - Dated:- 5-10-2016 - M. S. Sanklecha And G. S. Kulkarni, JJ. Mr. Vipul Bajpayee for the appellant None for the respondent ORDER P. C. 1. This Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) challenges the order dated 25th June, 2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). The impugned order is in respect of Assessment Year 200708. 2. Mr. Bajpayee, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

orporation on 02.11.2003 and the said approval has to be reckoned for the purpose of granting deduction u/s 80IB(10) to the assessee in view of Explanation to the said section ? 3. The impugned order of the Tribunal upheld the view of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] in the order dated 16th June, 2010 while dismissing the Revenue's appeal. The basic controversy which arose before the Tribunal was to determine the date on which the housing project of the assessee has been app .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ved on 19th January, 2005. 4. Both the CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal have rendered a finding of fact that the building plan which was approved on 2nd November, 2003 was in respect of the project distinct from the project of the respondent assessee whose building plan was approved only on 19th January, 2005 for the first time. The impugned order rendered a factual finding that originally there were three different plots and in respect of one of these plots, admeasuring 1983 sq.meters, the previo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version