Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
ITA 928/2015 Page 1 of 3
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 17. +
ITA 928/2015
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6 ..... Appellant Through: Mr Rahul Chaudhary, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr Ruchir Bhatia, Junior Standing Counsel.
versus
MOHAK REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD.
..... Respondent
AND 19. +
ITA 930/2015
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6 ..... Appellant Through: Mr Rahul Chaudhary, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr Ruchir Bhatia, Junior Standing Counsel.
versus
MOHAK REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD.
..... Respondent
CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
O R D E R %
08.12.2015 CM No.29951/2015 in ITA No.930/2015 1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/04/2026 at 21:46:36
ITA 928/2015 Page 2 of 3
The application stands disposed of.
ITA Nos. 928 and 930 of 2015 3. These appeals by the Revenue are directed against the common order 20th May, 2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) in ITA Nos.4351 and 3577/Del/2012 for the Assessment Years (‘AYs’) 2006-07 and 2007-08 respectively. 4. These appeals by the Revenue relating to a development agreement entered into by the Assessee with Vikram Electric Equipment (P) Ltd. (VEEPL) for development of the land for ultimate sale to the DLF Group, are similar to other appeals of the Revenue arising out of similar facts. This Court has by its decision dated 5th November, 2015 in ITA No.257/2015 (Commissioner of Income Tax-IV v. Zebian Estate P. Ltd.) and ITA No.270/2015 (Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-7 v. Penthea Builders And Developers Pvt. Ltd.) affirmed the orders of the ITAT in those appeals. In turn, that order refers to the earlier decision of the ITAT in ITO v. Finian Estates Developers (P) Ltd. (2012) 23 taxmann.com 360 (Delhi – Trib.) which was affirmed by this Court while dismissing the Revenue’s appeal i.e. ITA No.234/2012 on 26th August, 2015. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/04/2026 at 21:46:36
ITA 928/2015 Page 3 of 3
Learned counsel for the Revenue sought to urge that the present appeals stand on a different footing on account of a statement made initially by the Assessee that the development agreement in question was entered into with one Mr Mast Ram. Later, in the course of the assessment proceedings, the Assessee disclosed that it was in fact entered into with VEEPL. 6. In the considered view of this Court, that single factor would not make a difference to the outcome of the appeals. Apart from the fact that the relevant clauses of the development agreement with VEEPL in these cases are more or less similar, an additional factor in the present case is that VEEPL disclosed its complete books of accounts before the Assessing Officer and this substantiated the case of the Respondent Assessee. 7. Consequently, the Court is not persuaded to take a different view of the matter as far as these appeals are concerned. No substantial question of law arises. The appeals are dismissed.
S.MURALIDHAR, J
VIBHU BAKHRU, J DECEMBER 8, 2015/MK This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/04/2026 at 21:46:36