Case LawHigh Court › Itxa/1252/2008 Of The Commissioner Of In...

Itxa/1252/2008 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-25, C-11,Mumbai v. Shri Harshad P. Doshi

High Court 22 Feb 2011 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/1252/2008 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-25, C-11,Mumbai v. Shri Harshad P. Doshi
Date of order
22 Feb 2011
Assessment year(s)
2005-06
Outcome
Other

Case summary

In Itxa/1252/2008 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-25, C-11,Mumbai v. Shri Harshad P. Doshi, the High Court (2011) decided the matter.

Decision: The appeal is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

Sections referenced in this judgment

The order — as passed by the High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1252 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax-25 ..Appellant. V/s. Shri Harshad P. Doshi ..Respondent. None for the appellant. Ms. Madhavi Tavanandi for respondent. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATED : 22ND FEBRUARY, 2011 P.C. :- 1.The appeal was admitted on 7th January, 2009 on the following question of law:- " Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was right in accepting the assessee's claim under Section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of the profit derived from sale of shop holding that nowhere there is any contemplation for restricting the benefit only to residential units and not to the shops etc. even though section 80IB(10) refers only to residential units and the amendment including sub-clause (d) in respect of shops and commercial establishments was introduced in the said section w.e.f. 01-04- 2005 i.e. from AY 2005-06 and has no retrospective application . " 2.Counsel for respondent states that the question of law raised in this appeal is answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee by the judgment of this Court in Income Tax Appeal No.1194 of 2010 [CIT V/s. Brahma Associates] decided by us today i.e. 22/02/2011. Accordingly, the aforesaid question is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The appeal is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. (MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan