2014 (2) TMI 468

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... : Honourable Mr. Justice Akil Kureshi) 1. Rule. Learned counsel Shri K.M. Parikh for the respondents waives service of Rule. 2. Considering the controversy involved, the petition is taken up for final hearing immediately. 3. The petitioner is a partnership firm and is engaged in the business of housing development. For the assessment year 2009-10, on the various housing development proje....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....(10) of the Act and added the sum of Rs.1,65,85,000/and also ordered initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. The petitioner challenged the same before the Commissioner (Appeals). Pending the appeal, the petitioner prayed for stay against the tax demand to the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) under impugned communication dated October 30, 2013 g....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... ratio of the decision of this Court in the case of Radhe Developers (supra). The Assessing Officer also did not raise any of the objections, except for recording that granting deduction to the petitioner would amount to following the decision in the case of Radhe Developers (supra) or M/s.Shakti Corporation. The Department had challenged such decision and, therefore, the deduction as prayed for b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... prima facie case that the case of the petitioner for deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act is governed by the decision of this Court in the case of Radhe Developers (supra). It is not in dispute that such decision of this Court was carried in appeal before the Supreme Court and the Special Leave Petition has also been dismissed. In that view of the matter, in our opinion, the petitioner has....