Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Swadesh Developers And Builders
High Court
21 Aug 2015 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · mphc_db_jbp
Parties
Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Swadesh Developers And Builders
Date of order
21 Aug 2015
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Swadesh Developers And Builders, the High Court (2015) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPURI.T.A. No.24/2013 & I.T.A.No.26/2013
Commissioner of Income Tax
…..Appellant
Versus
M/s Swadesh Developers and Builders
….Respondent
=============================================
Coram:
Hon’ble Shri Justice A. M. Khanwilkar, Chief JusticeHon’ble Shri Justice K.K.Trivedi, J.
=============================================
Shri Sanjay Lal and Shri Rajesh Pandey, Advocates for theappellant/Commissioner of Income Tax.
Shri Siddharth Gupta, Advocate for the respondent.
=============================================
Reserved On : 21.07.2015Date of Decision : 21.08.2015
J U D G M E N T{ 21[st] August, 2015}
Per: A.M. Khanwilkar, Chief Justice:
These appeals are filed by the Department qua singleassessee, regarding two separate Assessment Years i.e. 2005-06 and2007-08, bearing I.T.A. Nos.24 and 26 of 2013 respectively.
2.The substantial question raised in these appeals is identical to
Psm.
the substantial question answered in I.T.A. No.40/2012 (TheCommissioner of Income Tax, Bhopal vs. M/s Global Reality).Accordingly, even these appeals succeed on the same terms bysetting aside the impugned judgment of the Tribunal with regard tothe deduction claimed by the assessee under Section 80IB(10)(a) ofthe Income Tax Act and instead the decision of the AssessingOfficer to disallow the said deduction is upheld. No order as tocosts.
(A.M. Khanwilkar) Chief Justice
(K.K.Trivedi) Judge
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.
EaseValue