ACIT, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS vs. ASHAPURA DEVELOPERS, BANDRA(E)

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7805/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 July 202615 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to present its case before the CIT(A). In the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, considering the documents now placed before the Tribunal.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Ashapura Developers, had lease rental receipts. The Assessing Officer treated these as business income, while the CIT(A) held they were taxable under Income from House Property. The assessee failed to appear before the CIT(A) despite multiple opportunities.

What were the issues?

Whether lease rental receipts are taxable as business income or income from house property, and whether the CIT(A) erred in not considering the assessee's submissions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 144B,Section 37,Section 24(a),Section 57(iii),Section 270A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI

Before: HON’BLESHRI PAWAN SINGH & HON’BLE SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL

For Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR
Pronounced: 20.07.2026

Heard together (3 matters)

ITA 768/MUM/2026
ITA 769/MUM/2026
ITA 8685/MUM/2025

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

आदेश / ORDER PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: All these 6 appeals filed by both, Revenue and assessee comprising of relevant Assessment Years are against the orders of ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi passed against the assessment orders by Revenue. Consolidated details of these appeals are tabulated below:

Sr. ITA No. Order of CIT(A) Assessment order Assess- Appeal ment year by No. No. Date Passed by Date Passed u/s. 1. 7805/M/20 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2 25.09. ACIT, CC 27.12.2019 143(3) 2017-18 Revenue 25 025- 2025 32(1), Mumbai 26/1081170889(1)

ITA 7805, 7806 and 7807/MUM/2025, ITA 768 and 769/MUM/2026 AND ITA 8685/MUM/2025 ASHAPURA DEVELOPERS A.Y. 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21and2023-24 2. 7806/M/20 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2 25.09. National e- 06.04.2021 143(3) 2018-19 Revenue 25 025- 2025 Assessment r.w.s. 26/1081171274(1) Centre Delhi 143(3A) & 143(3B) 3. 7807/M/20 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2 25.09. Income Tax 28.03.2024 143(3) 2022-23 Revenue 25 025- 2025 Department r.w.s. 26/1081171548(1) 144B 4. 8685/M/20 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2 14.11. Income Tax 08.09.2022 143(3) 2020-21 Assessee 25 025- 2025 Department r.w.s. 26/1082624094(1) 144B 5. 768/M/202 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2 14.11. Income Tax 08.09.2022 143(3) 2020-21 Revenue 6 025- 2025 Department r.w.s. 26/1082624094(1) 144B 6. 769/M/202 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2 14.11.2 Income Tax 21.02.2025 143(3) 2023-24 Revenue 6 025- 025 Department 26/1082624264(1) 2. Grounds raised by the Revenue:

ITA 7805, 7806 and 7807/MUM/2025

i. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the lease rental receipts are taxable under the head Income from House Property instead of Profits and Gains of Business OR Profession as rightly assessed by the Assessing Officer, ignoring the assessee’s systematic and organized commercial exploitation of immovable properties as a business activity.

ii. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in mechanically relying on ITAT orders in the assessee’s earlier years (Where rentals arose from unsold flats shown as stock in trade) without examining the materially changed factual matrix in the current year, rendering such reliance misconceived and inapplicable.

iii. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessee had ceased any construction OR development activity for several years, had no capital work in progress OR sales turnover, and maintained identical opening and closing stock thereby evidencing a clear shift in dominant intention from construction sale to property leasing as a business. The mechanical reliance on ITAT orders for earlier years, despite such materially changed facts, was misconceived and perverse.

iv. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in misapplying and distinguishing on untenable grounds the binding ratio of the Honble Supreme Court in Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd. v. CIT (2015) 373 ITR 673 (SC) and Rayala Corporation (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 386 ITR 500 (SC), which categorically hold that rental receipts derived from business of letting

ITA 7805, 7806 and 7807/MUM/2025, ITA 768 and 769/MUM/2026 AND ITA 8685/MUM/2025 ASHAPURA DEVELOPERS A.Y. 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21and2023-24 out property are taxable as business income. The CIT(A) also failed to apply the core legal test of dominant business activity and systematic commercial exploitation of property for profit. v. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) wrongly invoked the principle of consistency despite the settled law that each assessment year is a separate unit and that the rule of res-judicata does not apply to income-tax proceedings, as held in Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT (1992) 201 ITR 1 (SC). The CIT(A) failed to determine the correct head of income for the year in light of the contemporaneous facts and the assessee’s real conduct. vi. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) ignored the AOs detailed findings demonstrating that the assessee’s main source of income was organized leasing with attendant services, and that the partnership deed permitted such activity. The CIT(A) overlooked that the assessee claimed business- side expenditures under Section 37 while simultaneously seeking house property benefits under Section 24(a), amounting to impermissible head shopping. vii. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing deduction under Section 24(a) which is statutorily unavailable when receipts are assessable as business income. The order thus results in an incorrect reduction of taxable income and unjustified consequential reliefs adverse to Revenue. viii. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)’s conclusions suffer from non application of mind, being contrary to the AO s reasoned findings and to the evidentiary record demonstrating cessation of development and commencement of organized leasing business. The impugned order therefore warrants reversal and restoration ofthe AO s assessment under Section 143(3), along with consequential findings including initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 270A. ITA 768 /MUM/2026 i. Whether On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the Assessing Officer's reclassification of Rs. 19,96,68,853/- as business income and the consequent disallowance of deduction of Rs. 5,99,00,665/- being 30% under section 24(a) of the Act is not sustainable, without properly appreciating the facts of the case. ITA 769/MUM/2026

ITA 7805, 7806 and 7807/MUM/2025, ITA 768 and 769/MUM/2026 AND ITA 8685/MUM/2025 ASHAPURA DEVELOPERS A.Y. 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21and2023-24 i. Whether On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in setting aside the Assessing Officer's reclassification of Rs. 20,86,31,212/- as business income instead of income from house property, and further erred in deleting the addition and disallowance of Rs. 6,25,89,364/- made by the Assessing Officer, without properly appreciating the facts of the case. 2.1. Grounds raised by the Assessee: ITA 8685/MUM/2025 i. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 9,49,62,842 u/s 57(iii) solely on the basis that the assessee had not filed any submissions or evidence during the appellate proceedings to establish the nexus between the borrowed funds and interest earning advances, without appreciating that the absence of such submissions was due to bona fide constraints, the assessee now seeks to furnish complete submission and supporting documents before the Honable Tribunal which clearly establish the proximate connection required under section 57(iii), and therefore the disallowance sustained by the CIT(A) is unjustified and liable to be deleted after considering the evidences now being placed on record. ii. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 3,39,29,020 u/s 40(a)(ia) solely because the assessee did not file any submissions or reconciliation during the appellate proceedings, without appreciating that the absence of submissions was not on account of malafide intent but due to bona fide constraints, the assessee now seeks to furnish the complete reconciliation of TDS, challans evidencing tax deposit, before the Honable Tribunal, which decisively establish that no disallowance is warranted in view of the second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) r.w.s. section 201, therefore, the disallowance confirmed by the CIT(A) is unjustified, contrary to law, and deserves to be deleted after considering the evidences now being placed on record. 3. The above captioned appeals filed revenue are on common issues except for variation in the quantum, hence we take all these appeals together by way of passing this consolidated order. Appeal filed by the assessee is also taken up for adjudication along with these appealsby revenue in this order. The sole issue raised by the Revenue is in

ITA 7805, 7806 and 7807/MUM/2025, ITA 768 and 769/MUM/2026 AND ITA 8685/MUM/2025 ASHAPURA DEVELOPERS A.Y. 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21and2023-24 respect of rental income to be characterized as income from house property or as income from business.

4.

Assessee is engaged in the business as builder and developers. Since the issue involved is common in all the appeals filed by the Revenue,we draw the facts from the appeal for A.Y. 2017-18 for our observations and finding which shall apply mutatis mutandis to all the other captioned appeals of the revenue.

5.

For the A.Y. 2017-18, assessee filed its return of income on 07.11.2017, reporting total income at Rs. 9,28,72,140/-. Assessee has reported income from house property of Rs. 10,20,60,434/- and claimed setoff towards business loss of Rs. 91,88,296/-. Ld. AO asked the assessee to explain why the treatment of rental income under the head ‘income from house property’ should not be denied and be taxed as income from business.Assessee furnished its detailed replies explaining that this issue is well settled by the coordinate bench in the past several preceding assessment years in assessee’s own case. There is no change in facts and applicable law in this regard and therefore, is squarely covered by the judicial precedents in assessee’s own case. However, ld. AO continued with his proposal and concluded to treat the rental income as business income by referring to the relevant provisions of the Act without bringing any cogent material on record to demonstrate conduct of business operations for earning of rental income. He thus, re-characterized the income reported by the assessee under the head income from house property to business income under the head ‘profit and gains of business or profession’.

6.

In the first appeal, assessee retreated the submissions made before the ld. AO. After taking into cognizance the decision of coordinate bench in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2012-13 in ITA no.

ITA 7805, 7806 and 7807/MUM/2025, ITA 768 and 769/MUM/2026 AND ITA 8685/MUM/2025 ASHAPURA DEVELOPERS A.Y. 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21and2023-24 1466/M/2017 dated 01.03.2019, ld. CIT(A) gave relief to the assessee. Ld. CIT(A) also took note of the decision of Chennai Properties and Investment Limited v. CIT (2015) 373 ITR 673 (SC) by the Hon’ble Supreme Court which was relied upon by the ld. AO and took note of the distinct factual matrix wherein letting out was not the appellant’s exclusive business. In the present case of the assessee, primary business remains construction and development, with letting out being incidental as evidenced by long tenure registered agreement for the premises owned by it. On confrontation of the aforesaid factual position and the position of law to the ld. DR, nothing was brought on record to controvert the same.

7.

We find that the issue before us is no longer resintegra as held by the coordinate bench in assessee’s own case for past several assessment years,there being no change in the factual matrix about assessee actually earning rental income from the premises owned by it. This is a legacy issue for the assessee with the first assessment year 2010-11 wherein the coordinate bench in ITA no. 7119/M/2013 dated 24.08.2016 held in its favor by holding that income of the assessee is liable to be treated as income from house property. Relevant para in this regard is extracted below for ready reference:

“4. The contention of the assessee is that the assessee is in the business of construction and development of the property. Its main object is construction and the assessee leased out the unsold property on rent, therefore the rental income from the said property is liable to be treated as house rent income. In support of his claim, the learned representative of the assessee has placed reliance upon the law settled by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax 12 Vs. M/s. Sane & Doshi Enterprises on 9 April, 2015. On the other hand the learned representative of the department has placed reliance upon the order passed by the CIT(A) in question. It is not in disputed that the assessee has developed a shopping-cum-office complex

ITA 7805, 7806 and 7807/MUM/2025, ITA 768 and 769/MUM/2026 AND ITA 8685/MUM/2025 ASHAPURA DEVELOPERS A.Y. 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21and2023-24 in the name and style of M/s.Hallmark Business Plaza in Bandra (East), Mumbai. He has let out the office place for rent todifferent entities and derived income from it. Beside this the assessee was also doing the maintenance of complex and also earning income from various activities linked to the complex like parking charges, amenities charges, mobile charges etc. In brief the assessee had let out the property and was rendering the services attributable to the complex. Since the Assessing Officer was of the view that the assessee was commercially exploiting his shops cum office complex, therefore the income of the assessee is liable to be treated as business income. Hence the Assessing Officer declined the contention of the assessee and treated the income from business income despite income from house property. Undoubtedly the learned CIT(A) has confirmed the same. The learned representative of the assessee has relied upon the law settled by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax 12 Vs. V/s. Sane & Doshi Enterprises decided on 9 April, 2015. Now it is to be seen whether the facts of the case is identical to the facts of this case or not. The said order perused which speaks that the assessee was engaged in the real estate business and constructed a complex viz. May Fair Tower. It is stated to be a partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. He has also shown the rental income but the authority treated the same as income from business. Therefore, the matter went up to the Jurisdictional High Court and the Hon'ble High Court in the case cited above decided the matter in favour of the assessee. The facts and circumstances of this case is quite similar to the facts andcircumstances of the present case. In both the cases the assessee have constructed commercial complex and rented out the unsold shops /offices on lease. In case of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, Commissioner of Income Tax 12 Vs. M/s. Sane & Doshi Enterprises decided on 9 April, 2015, the income of the assessee was treated as income from house property. Finding identical facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the view that in the present case the law is quite applicable and the income of the assessee is liable to be treated as income from the house property and accordingly he would be entitled exemption u/s.22 of the Act. hence in view of the above said law we set aside the finding of the CIT(A) in question and direct the Assessing Officer to re-assess the income of the assessee in view of the observation made above.”

ITA 7805, 7806 and 7807/MUM/2025, ITA 768 and 769/MUM/2026 AND ITA 8685/MUM/2025 ASHAPURA DEVELOPERS A.Y. 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21and2023-24 8. Identical issue came up in A.Y. 2011-12 in ITA no. 3565/M/2016 and A.Y. 2012-13 in ITA 1466/M/2017 vide order dated 01.03.2019 wherein also after considering judicial pronouncement in the case of Chennai Property and Investment Limited (supra) as well as in the case of Raj Dadarkar and Associates v. ACIT (2017) 81 taxmann.com 193 (SC) and that of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT v. Gundecha held in ITA 347/M/2016 dated 31.07.2018 and following the judicial consistency vide order in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2011-12 (supra),stand of revenue to treat the income as business income was dismissed. Relevant paragraphs in this regard are extracted below for ready reference:

“12. From the arguments of the parties as well as from the records, we found that the facts in the present case are not in dispute, but the thrust of the revenue to treat the income of rental as 'business income' is mainly on the basis of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chennai Properties and Investment Ltd vrs. CIT (2015) 373 ITR 673 (SC) and other judgments cited by Ld. DR as mentioned above.

13.

On scrutiny of the judgments cited by both the parties, we found that in the case of Chennai Properties and Investment Ltd vrs. CIT (supra), the main object as per the Memorandumof Association of the assessee in that case was to acquire the properties in the city and to let out those properties. In the return, the entire income of the assessee was from letting out these properties, thus it was concluded that the letting out the property is in fact is the business of the assessee and in those circumstances, the rental income was treated as 'income from business'. Whereas as per the facts of the present case, the assessee is into the business of builders and developers and not exclusively in the business of letting properties. Therefore, in such circumstances, the facts of the present case are distinguishable from the facts of the case of Chennai Properties (supra). The identical proposition was also discussed by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of Gundecha Builders, where the facts of the case are similar to that of the assessees, after considering the judgment of Chennai Properties and

ITA 7805, 7806 and 7807/MUM/2025, ITA 768 and 769/MUM/2026 AND ITA 8685/MUM/2025 ASHAPURA DEVELOPERS A.Y. 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21and2023-24 Investment Ltd vrs. CIT (2015) 373 ITR 673 (SC) as well as Sane & Doshi Enterprises (2015) 377 ITR 165 (Bom HC) had held that the rental income from properties held in stock-in-trade should be assessed under the head Income from house property', when the intention of the assessee is to earn rental income.

14.

In the case of Raj Dadarkar & Associates Vrs. ACIT (2017) 81 taxmann.com 193 (SC), wherein it was held where assessee having obtained a property on lease, constructed various shops and stalls on it and gave same to various persons on sub-licensing basis, since assessee was not engaged in systematic or organized activity of providing services to occupiers of shops/stalls, income from sub-licensing was to be taxed as income from house property and not as business income.

15.

Therefore, considering the various judgments cited by the respective parties, keeping in view the orders by the Coordinate Bench of ITAT in assessee's own case for AY 2010-11 and also the facts of the present case that assessee is in the business of development of real estate projects and letting of property is not the exclusive business of the assessee, therefore while relying upon the judgment of jurisdictional High Court in the case ofCIT Vrs. Gundecha Builders in ITA no. 347 of 2016 dated 31.07.18 (Bom), we are of the view that the rental income earned by the assessee was rightly treated as income under the head 'House Property' by Ld. CIT(A).

16.

Moreover no new facts have been brought on record before us in order to controvert or rebut the findings so recorded by Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, there are no reasons for us to interfere into or deviate from the findings so recorded by the Ld.CIT(A). Hence, we are of the considered view that the findings so recorded by the Ld. CIT (A) are judicious and are well reasoned. Resultantly, these ground raised by the revenue stands dismissed.”

9.

Another series of appeal proceedings came up before the coordinate bench for A.Y. 2013-14, A.Y. 2014-15 and A.Y. 2015-16 in ITA no. 3609/M/2019 vide order dated 01.07.2021 which followed the above orders and allowed the claim of the assessee dismissing the appeals of the revenue.

ITA 7805, 7806 and 7807/MUM/2025, ITA 768 and 769/MUM/2026 AND ITA 8685/MUM/2025 ASHAPURA DEVELOPERS A.Y. 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21and2023-24 10. We find that the facts remain undisputed and nothing is controverted in respect of submission of the assessee to earn rental income from leasing of property. In the given set of facts, there being no change, respectfully following the aforesaid judicial precedents in assessee’s own case, we do not find any reason to interfere with the findings arrived at by the ld. CIT(A) of treating the income reported by the assessee as income from house property. Accordingly, grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed.

10.

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed.

11.

The above observation and findings applymutatis mutandis to all other captioned appeals of the Revenue, there being no change in factual matrix. Accordingly, all these four appeals of the revenue are also dismissed.

12.

Now we take up appeal filed by the assessee wherein two issues are involved, one relating to disallowance of expenses claimed under section 57(iii) and secondis in respect of disallowance made under section 40(a)(ia) on the premise that assessee did not file its submissions or reconciliation,for which the assessee now seeks to furnish the same before the Tribunal to justify its claim and prays to delete the addition so made. From the perusal of the impugned assessment order, we note that it has been completed under section 143(3) read with section 144B. Ld. AO had issued statutory notice under section 142(1) as well as a show cause notice for which assessee had responded in parts, details of which are tabulated in para 2 of the said order. Ld. AO in the assessment order as taken note of the written submissions filed and considered the same while completing the assessment and making the disallowance/additions. At the first appeal stage ld. CIT(A) records in para 5 about the notice issued and

ITA 7805, 7806 and 7807/MUM/2025, ITA 768 and 769/MUM/2026 AND ITA 8685/MUM/2025 ASHAPURA DEVELOPERS A.Y. 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21and2023-24 submissions of the assessee which is tabulated and reproduce below for ready reference:

Sr. No. Notice issue Notice Appellant’s response date Compliance date 1. 21.09.2023 28.09.2023 Appellant not responded. 2. 15.11.2023 24.11.2023 Requested a short adjournment of 7 days. 3. 28.08.2024 05.09.2024 Requested adjournment of one month due to accountant and CA being busy with tax audit till 30th September. 4. 13.11.2024 19.11.2024 Requested 30 days’ adjournment stating that details were under compilation. 5. 14.07.2025 17.07.2025 Requested a ‘final short adjournment’ of 10 days due to CA being unwell and assured that no further adjournment will be sought. 6. 20.08.2025 26.08.2025 Requested one-month adjournment due to CA being pre-occupies with filing of returns; sought condonation of delay. 7. 28.10.2025 03.11.2025 Requested adjournment till 10th November as CA was busy with audit uploading; assured that submissions would be uploaded by 12th November without further adjournment.

13.

From these details, ld. CIT(A) observed that assessee failed to submit any written submissions or reply despite granting of several opportunities.Assessee has consistently sought adjustments for various reasons and failed to avail the opportunities so granted. He thus,proceeded to adjudicate on the issues based on information available on record along with submissions provided in the statements of facts and grounds of appeal and thus, partly allowed the appeal of the assessee.

14.

In view of the above stated facts and circumstances,we find that assessee has failed to make its submissions before the ld. CIT(A) despite several opportunities and now, before us has sought, through 12

ITA 7805, 7806 and 7807/MUM/2025, ITA 768 and 769/MUM/2026 AND ITA 8685/MUM/2025 ASHAPURA DEVELOPERS A.Y. 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21and2023-24 the grounds raised before us, to furnish the submissions and supporting documents to demonstrate its claim. Assessee has placed on record a paper book containing 133 pages. In the certificate below the index of the said paper book, assessee mentions that all these documents form part of the records of the lower authorities, that is, these were before the ld. AO and therefore, need not be treated as additional submissions. It is also mentioned in the same certification that provisions of Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Authority) Rules, 1963 are not attracted.

15.

We have considered the submissions made before us by the ld. Counsel seeking for remitting the matter back to the file of ld. AO for meritorious consideration of the documents now furnished before us in the paper book, though these are not additional evidences. We find that all these documents were before the ld. AO which had been considered at the assessment stage. However, before the ld. CIT(A), assessee did not avail several opportunities granted to it except for seeking adjournments all the time which compelled the first appellate authority to adjudicate the matter based on material available on record. There is a gross failure on the part of the assessee to not to attend the hearing fixed by the ld. CIT(A). However, in the interest of justice and faire play, and taking in to account that assessee had participated in the assessment proceedings and made all the submissions, we find it appropriate to remit the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(A) for de-novo meritorious adjudication on the grounds raised at the first appellate stage by considering the documents now placed before us in the form of paper book containing 133 pages.

14.1. Needless to say, assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard and to make any further submissions, if any, require to justify its claim. We also direct the assessee to be diligent in attending

ITA 7805, 7806 and 7807/MUM/2025, ITA 768 and 769/MUM/2026 AND ITA 8685/MUM/2025 ASHAPURA DEVELOPERS A.Y. 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21and2023-24 all the dates fixed for hearing by the Ld. CIT(A) for its expeditious and efficacious disposal. Assessee should not seek adjournment unless warranted by compelling reason. In the result, ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

16.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee isallowed for statistical purposes.

16.1. In the result, appeals of both, Revenue and assessee are decided as per the table below:

Sr. No. ITA No. Assessment Appeal by Result of the Year appeal 1. 7805/M/2025 2017-18 Revenue Dismissed 2. 7806/M/2025 2018-19 Revenue Dismissed 3. 7807/M/2025 2022-23 Revenue Dismissed 4. 768/M/2026 2020-21 Revenue Dismissed 5. 769/M/2026 2022-23 Revenue Dismissed 6. 8685/M/2025 2020-21 Assessee Allowed

Order pronounced in the open court on 20 July, 2026

Sd/- Sd/- (Pawan Singh) (Girish Agrawal) Judicial Member Accountant Member Ankit, PS Mumbai Dated: 20.07.2026

ITA 7805, 7806 and 7807/MUM/2025, ITA 768 and 769/MUM/2026 AND ITA 8685/MUM/2025 ASHAPURA DEVELOPERS A.Y. 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21and2023-24 Copy to:

ACIT 5th FLOOR, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, 1 PAREL, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA 400012

ASHAPURA DEVELOPERS 101B, HALL MARK BUSINESS 2 PLAZA BANDRA (E), MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA 400051

ASHAPURA DEVELOPERS 904, HALLMARK BUSINESS PLAZA, 3 GURUNANAK HOSPITAL ROAD, BANDRA (E), MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA 400051 A/DCIT-23(1) 4 PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, LALBAUG, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA 400012 5 THE PCIT / CIT, 6 THE D.R., ITAT, MUMBAIBENCH 7 GUARD FILE

More judgments on Section 144B

All 10,521 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →