Itxa/866/2016 Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-6 Pune v. Kewal Real Estate Pvt. Ltd
High Court
11 Dec 2018 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/866/2016 Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-6 Pune v. Kewal Real Estate Pvt. Ltd
Date of order
11 Dec 2018
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Itxa/866/2016 Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-6 Pune v. Kewal Real Estate Pvt. Ltd, the High Court (2018) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: 4.Without recording separate reasons therefore, since facts areidentical, this tax appeal is also dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 866 OF 2016
The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-6Pune
.. Appellant
v/s.
Kewal Real Estate Pvt. Ltd.
.. Respondent
Mr. Suresh Kumar for the appellant None for the respondent
CORAM : AKIL KURESHI & M.S. SANKLECHA, J.J.
P.C.
DATED : 11[th] DECEMBER, 2018.
1.The Revenue has challenged the judgment of Income Tax
Appellate Tribunal, dated 21.09.2015.
2.Following question is presented for our consideration :--
Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law,the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee satisfiedall the conditions stipulated in the provisions of section80IB(10) of the Income Tax Ac, 1961 and therefore would beeligible to claim deduction?
3.Learned Counsel for the Revenue candidly pointed out thatconcerning this very assessee arising out of the same judgment andinvolving identical question, the Revenue's Tax Appeal No. 793 of 2016was heard on 10[th] December, 2018. This Court has dismissed the saidappeal.
4.Without recording separate reasons therefore, since facts areidentical, this tax appeal is also dismissed.
(M.S. SANKLECHA, J.)
(AKIL KURESHI, J.)
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.