Case LawHigh Court › Itxa/784/2013 Of The Commissioner Of Inc...

Itxa/784/2013 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax- Iii, Pune v. M/S Kasturi Builders

High Court 07 Feb 2013 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/784/2013 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax- Iii, Pune v. M/S Kasturi Builders
Date of order
07 Feb 2013
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Allowed

Case summary

In Itxa/784/2013 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax- Iii, Pune v. M/S Kasturi Builders, the High Court (2013) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.

Issue: Admit on the following substantial question of law:- “ Whether the Tribunal is justified in not appreciating the fact that SRPL had executed a PoA on 31/8/2006 in favour of the assessee wherein it is clearly stipulated that the TDR is sold to the assessee for a consideration of Rs.96,25,000/- for wh...

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

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

The order — as passed by the High Court

sas IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL (LOD) NO.1901 OF 2012 The Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Pune ..Appellant. V/s. M/s. Kasturi Builders ..Respondent. Mr Tejveer Singh. for the appellant. None for the respondent. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND M.S. SANKLECHA, JJ.DATED : 7TH FEBRUARY, 2013 P.C. :- 1. Heard. Admit on the following substantial question of law:- “ Whether the Tribunal is justified in not appreciating the fact that SRPL had executed a PoA on 31/8/2006 in favour of the assessee wherein it is clearly stipulated that the TDR is sold to the assessee for a consideration of Rs.96,25,000/- for which the payment was made on 19/4/2006 and the assessee was bound by the contract ? After recording the facts the Tribunal has allowed the claim of the respondents-assessee by relying upon the decision of this Court in the matter of CIT V/s. Indo Saudi Services (Travels) P. Ltd. reported in [2009] 310 ITR 306 (Bom). Counsel for the revenue is unable to disinguish the applicability of the aforesaid judgment judgment to the facts of the present case. In view of the above, we see no reason to entertain the appeal. 3.The 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