Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Tribunal Denies Deduction for Residential Project Due to Missing Completion Certificate</h1> <h3>Mukeshbhai Vitthalbhai Patel, C/o V.P. Patel And Co. Adv. Versus Income-tax Officer, Ward – 3, Gandhinagar</h3> The tribunal upheld the denial of Section 80IB(10) deduction for the residential project 'Shalin Tenements' in assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08. ... Deduction u/s 80IB(10) denied - non submission of documentary evidence - Held that:- Learned counsel is very fair in the beginning itself in submitting that both the lower authorities have followed their respective orders for assessment years 2005-06 denying a similar claim qua the very residential project. He states that assessee’s appeal for preceding assessment year 2005-06 is pending before this tribunal. As directed the registry to find out necessary details of assessee’s alleged appeal stated to be pending. We are informed that a co-ordinate bench in assessment year 2005-06 had decided assessee’s appeal [2011 (7) TMI 1320 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] remitting the very issue back to the Assessing Officer on 22.07.2011. Case records in both these appeals reveal that AO had already finalized consequential proceedings well before issuing 148 notices in question. There is no other appeal pending in this tribunal as per our records. Therefore uphold the CIT(A)’s findings under challenge denying the Section 80IB(10) deduction in question wherein held despite granting numerous opportunity of being heard to the appellant, he has failed to attend before me to rebut the findings of the AO with documentary evidences. In absence of documentary evidences, the claim of the appellant cannot be allowed. - Decided against assessee Issues:Assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08 - Reopening proceedings disallowing Section 80IB(10) deduction.Analysis:1. Validity of Reopening Proceedings:The counsel representing the assessee did not press for the challenge to the validity of reopening in both assessment years. As a result, the former identical ground challenging the validity of reopening was rejected.2. Section 80IB(10) Deduction:The main issue revolved around the denial of Section 80IB(10) deduction by both lower authorities for the residential project named 'Shalin Tenements.' The tribunal noted that a similar claim for the preceding assessment year 2005-06 was pending. The Assessing Officer had already finalized consequential proceedings before issuing the 148 notices. The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s findings denying the deduction, emphasizing that the AO had disallowed the claim based on the previous year's decision. The tribunal considered the appellant's submissions, which included details of the project, maintenance of accounts, and compliance with statutory provisions. The appellant argued that all conditions for the deduction were met, providing various evidence to support their claim. However, the tribunal, considering the AO's assessment order and the appellant's submissions, confirmed the disallowance of the deduction under Section 80IB(10) for both assessment years. The tribunal highlighted the appellant's failure to provide the 'Certificate of Project Completion' as a crucial factor in denying the deduction.3. Judicial Precedents and Legal Arguments:The appellant relied on case laws such as CIT Vs. Radhey developers and Medha Constructions p. Ltd. to support their claim for the deduction under Section 80IB(10). The appellant argued that the housing project was completed before the stipulated time limit, fulfilling all conditions for the deduction. The tribunal, however, based its decision on the lack of documentary evidence provided by the appellant, especially the absence of the 'Certificate of Project Completion,' which was deemed essential for claiming the deduction.4. Final Decision:Ultimately, the tribunal agreed with the Departmental Representative's contentions and rejected the assessee's substantive ground on merits. Both appeals by the assessee were dismissed, and the addition made by the AO for the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08 was confirmed.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues surrounding the denial of Section 80IB(10) deduction for the residential project 'Shalin Tenements' in the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08, emphasizing the importance of providing necessary documentary evidence to support such claims.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found