Case LawHigh Court › Itxa/2324/2011 Of The Commissioner Of In...

Itxa/2324/2011 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax Central -1 v. Purvankara Projects Ltd

High Court 27 Feb 2013 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/2324/2011 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax Central -1 v. Purvankara Projects Ltd
Date of order
27 Feb 2013
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Itxa/2324/2011 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax Central -1 v. Purvankara Projects Ltd, the High Court (2013) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Issue: In this Appeal for the Assessment Year 2003-04 by the Revenue, following question has been raised for our consideration:- Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case and in law the Tribunal was justified in upholding the Appellate Order of the CIT(A) Mumbai dated 11.02.2010 in admitting the cl...

Decision: 3 Accordingly, appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.2324 OF 2011 The Commissioner of Income Tax Central-1..Appellant.V/s.M/s. Purvankara Projects Ltd...Respondent. Mr. Suresh Kumar with Mr. N. A. Kazi, for the Appellant.Mr. Rajeev Waglay with Mr. Dinesh Parmar i/b. Juris Parmar Chambers, for the Respondent. P.C:- CORAM: J.P.DEVADHAR & M.S.SANKLECHA,JJ.DATE : 27[th] FEBRUARY, 2013. In this Appeal for the Assessment Year 2003-04 by the Revenue, following question has been raised for our consideration:- Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case and in law the Tribunal was justified in upholding the Appellate Order of the CIT(A) Mumbai dated 11.02.2010 in admitting the claim of the Assessee Company of Sale proceeds receipt of car parking space, estimated at Rs.72,69,500/- was eligible for reliefs u/s. 80IB of the Income Tax 1961? and further justify that the space of Car Parking was the part and parcel of the Housing project as approved by the Local Authority and it cannot be separated from the project? 2Counsel for the parties state that the issue raised in the present Appeal is covered by the decision of this Court in Respondent-Assesse's own case in Income Tax Appeal No.4975 of 2010 (CIT(A) v/s. Purvankara Projects Ltd.) rendered on 25[th] July, 2011. For the reasons given in the order dated 25[th] July, 2011, we see no reason to entertain proposed question of law. 3 Accordingly, appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (M.S.SANKLECHA,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