Click Here For Best Books On Taxation & Law. Upto 60% Off On Select Titles. Free Shipping & Pay On Delivery!
 

Click Here To Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements

Home › All Judgements › ITO vs. M/s Yash Developers (ITAT Mumbai)

ITO vs. M/s Yash Developers (ITAT Mumbai)

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 26, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE:
CITATION:

Click here to download the judgement (yash_developers_80_IB_10.pdf)


S. 80-IB(10): Limit on extent of commercial area imposed by clause (d) of s. 80IB (10) inserted w.e.f. 1.4.2005 does not apply to projects approved before that date

In the assessee’s own case for the same project relating to AYs 2005-06 and 2006-07, which falls after the insertion of clause (d) to s. 80IB(10), the Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 80IB(10) in respect of the housing project. Not only this, in Manan Corporation 214 Taxmann 373 (Guj) it was held that the condition of limiting commercial establishment/shops to 2000 sq.ft, which has come into force w.e.f. 1.4.2005 would be applicable for projects approved on or after 1.4.2005 and where the approval of the project was prior to 31.3.2005, the amended provision would have no application for those projects. The Gujarat High Court placed heavily reliance on the decision of the Bombay High Court in Brahma & Associates 333 ITR 289 (Bom).

Note: The contrary view in Everest Home Construction (India) Pvt. Ltd was not followed even though the AM was the author of that order. See also G.R. Developers 353 ITR 1 (Kar) & Anriya Project Management Services 353 ITR 12 (Kar) where it was held that s. 80-IB(10)(d) applied only prospectively (SLP rejected in both cases)

Related Judgements

  1. “Sham Transaction” + Dependent Agent PE + House Property vs. Biz Profits 

    The assessee’s act of getting its’ wholly owned subsidiary (‘WOS’) to distribute tax-free dividend, and thereby reduce the FMV of the shares of the WOS, just prior to the sale of those shares, did result in a tax advantage to the assessee because it paid…
  2. Subrata Roy vs. ITO (ITAT Kolkata) 

    S. 153 provides that no assessment order shall be “made” u/s 143 after the expiry of two years from the end of the assessment year. There is no requirement that service must be effected before the expiry date. However, an order can be considered to have been made/ passed…
  3. ACIT vs. Pratibha Industries Ltd (ITAT Mumbai) 

    Three possible circumstances emerge on the date of initiation of search u/s 132(1): (a) proceedings are pending; (b) proceedings are not pending but some incriminating material is found in the course of search, indicating undisclosed income and/or assets and (c) proceedings are not pending and no incriminating material has…
  4. ITO vs. Right Florists Pvt Ltd (ITAT Kolkata) 

    U/s 5(2)(b) income accruing or arising in India is chargeable to tax in India. A website does not constitute a ‘permanent establishment’ unless the servers on which websites are hosted are also located in the same jurisdiction. As the servers of Google and Yahoo are not located in India,…
  5. ITO vs. Karnavati Petrochmem Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Ahmedabad) 

    S. 14A/ Rule 8D: Interest expenditure has to be netted against interest income and only the difference, if any, can be considered for disallowance

    No nexus has been established by the AO between the expenditure incurred by the assessee and the tax free income earned by him. Further, as the…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*