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 Upholds Proportionate Deduction for Housing Project Despite Violations</h1> <h3>Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 7, Pune Versus M/s. Eisha Supershwa Developers</h3> The tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision to allow proportionate deduction u/s. 80IB(10) on the housing project developed by the assessee. The ... Pro-rata deduction u/s. 80IB(10) on a housing project developed by the assessee - assessee has violated conditions of clause (e) and (f) of section 80IB(10) of the Act in respect of two flats out of entire project - HELD THAT:- Undisputedly, the assessee has violated conditions set out in clause (e) and (f) of section 80IB(10) in respect of only two flats. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has granted proportionate deduction u/s. 80IB(10) in respect of remaining housing project. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s. Vandana Properties [2012 (4) TMI 54 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] has approved the concept of proportionate deduction u/s. 80IB(10) of the Act. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Viswas Promoters Private Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax [2012 (11) TMI 1117 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] has held that the assessee is eligible to claim proportionate relief on the units of a housing project satisfying the conditions laid down u/s. 80IB(10) of the Act. Thus, the Hon’ble High Court upheld allowability of proportionate deduction u/s. 80IB(10) of the Act. The Tribunal in various decisions has been consistently allowing proportionate deduction to the extent housing project complies with all the conditions under the provisions of section 80IB(10) We find no infirmity in the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in allowing proportionate deduction u/s. 80IB(10) of the Act on eligible units of housing project. The impugned order is upheld and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed being devoid of any merit. Issues:- Allowability of pro-rata deduction u/s. 80IB(10) on a housing project developed by the assessee.Detailed Analysis:The appellate tribunal heard an appeal by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) concerning the allowance of pro-rata deduction u/s. 80IB(10) for the assessment year 2012-13. The Revenue contested the findings of the Commissioner in allowing the deduction on a housing project developed by the assessee, specifically challenging the treatment of two flats in the project. The Assessing Officer initially denied the deduction on the entire project due to violations of conditions under section 80IB(10) related to the two flats. The Commissioner, however, following the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court, allowed a proportionate deduction on eligible units of the project, leading to the Revenue's appeal.The assessee argued for the well-settled principle of allowing pro-rata deduction u/s. 80IB(10) on eligible units of a housing project, citing various legal precedents to support their case. The Revenue, represented by Shri S.B. Prasad, opposed the Commissioner's decision and sought to reverse it. The tribunal analyzed the contentions of both parties and reviewed the lower authorities' orders. It was noted that the only issue in the appeal pertained to the allowance of proportionate deduction u/s. 80IB(10) on eligible residential units of the housing project, considering the violations in only two flats. The tribunal referred to decisions by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court and the Hon'ble Madras High Court, which upheld the concept of proportionate deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act.Further, the tribunal highlighted its consistent practice of allowing proportionate deduction when a housing project complies with all conditions under section 80IB(10). It referenced a case involving the assessee's sister concern, where a similar violation occurred, and proportionate deduction was allowed on the unaffected units. The tribunal emphasized that where violations exist, the assessee is not entitled to claim deduction under section 80IB(10) for those specific units but can claim proportionate deduction on the remaining units of the project. Citing precedents and legislative mandates, the tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision to allow proportionate deduction on eligible units of the housing project, dismissing the Revenue's appeal for lack of merit.In conclusion, the tribunal upheld the order of the Commissioner, affirming the allowance of proportionate deduction u/s. 80IB(10) on the housing project developed by the assessee. The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed, and the order was pronounced on September 20, 2019.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found