1. CIT v. Balbirsingh Maini

134 ITD 445Income Tax Appellate Tribunal#9367 most cited

What is 1. CIT v. Balbirsingh Maini authority for?

Advance or earnest money received under a Memorandum of Understanding cannot be treated as income unless the obligations undertaken are completed. The taxability arises only upon completion of the contractual obligations.

11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2024.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Balbirsingh Maini · 134 ITD 445 · advance money · earnest money · MOU · project completion · income taxable · mercantile system of accounting · section 2(24) · profits and gains of business or profession

Issues it is cited on

section 153(a)project completion methodright to receivemercantile system of accountingsection 30section 40a(3)on-moneyprofits and gains of business or professionsection 2(24)liable to taxsection 5(1)section 40a

Judgments citing 1. CIT v. Balbirsingh Maini

Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Panvel, Raigad vs. Shekhar Gajanan Wani, Panvel

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 41/PUN/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Subodh RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)

…to year of taxation is not relevant (v) Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu India (P.) Ltd. -vs- DCIT, 109 taxmann.com 431 (Mumbai) Where relevant income was offered to tax in subsequent asst, year, there was no loss to revenue. (vi) DCIT -vs- M/s. Shiv Sai Developers, 134 ITD 445 (Mum) An advance or earnest money as per MOU cannot be treated as income, unless the obligations undertaken are completed. (Copies of these decisions are separately submitted). In view of the above facts and legal precedents cited above, it is humbly submitted that the amount of Rs.2,11,43,400/- received from M/s Valuable Properties Pvt. Ltd. bei…

DCIT Central Circle-3, Thane vs. Moreshwar Krushna Baria, Thane

ITA 2218/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Riddhi Mishra, CIT D.R
Section 132Section 69C

…e entire receipts as recorded in the seized documents is to be assessed as undisclosed income and relied upon the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble High Courts and Tribunal viz….. 1. CIT vs. Balbirsingh Maini, 398 ITR 531 (SC) 2. DCIT Vs. Shiv Sai Developers, 134 ITD 445 (mum) (2011) 3. Hasmukhlal M. Parikh vs. CIT, 37 ITR 359 (Bom) (1959) 4. CIT vs Shah Construction Co. Ltd 237 ITR 814 (Bom) (1999) 5. CIT vs. Ashaland Corporation, 133 ITR 55 (Guj) (1981) 6. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Rajiv A. Shah, 12 SOT 84 (Mum) (2007) 24. The Ld. AR for the assessee further contended that in the case of sister’s co…

DCIT Central Circle-3, Thane vs. Moreshwar Krushna Baria, Thane

ITA 2217/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Riddhi Mishra, CIT D.R
Section 132Section 69C

…e entire receipts as recorded in the seized documents is to be assessed as undisclosed income and relied upon the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble High Courts and Tribunal viz….. 1. CIT vs. Balbirsingh Maini, 398 ITR 531 (SC) 2. DCIT Vs. Shiv Sai Developers, 134 ITD 445 (mum) (2011) 3. Hasmukhlal M. Parikh vs. CIT, 37 ITR 359 (Bom) (1959) 4. CIT vs Shah Construction Co. Ltd 237 ITR 814 (Bom) (1999) 5. CIT vs. Ashaland Corporation, 133 ITR 55 (Guj) (1981) 6. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Rajiv A. Shah, 12 SOT 84 (Mum) (2007) 24. The Ld. AR for the assessee further contended that in the case of sister’s co…

Moreshwar Krushna Baria, Thane vs. Asst Comm of Income Tax Central Circle-3, Thane

ITA 1966/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Riddhi Mishra, CIT D.R
Section 132Section 69C

…e entire receipts as recorded in the seized documents is to be assessed as undisclosed income and relied upon the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble High Courts and Tribunal viz….. 1. CIT vs. Balbirsingh Maini, 398 ITR 531 (SC) 2. DCIT Vs. Shiv Sai Developers, 134 ITD 445 (mum) (2011) 3. Hasmukhlal M. Parikh vs. CIT, 37 ITR 359 (Bom) (1959) 4. CIT vs Shah Construction Co. Ltd 237 ITR 814 (Bom) (1999) 5. CIT vs. Ashaland Corporation, 133 ITR 55 (Guj) (1981) 6. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Rajiv A. Shah, 12 SOT 84 (Mum) (2007) 24. The Ld. AR for the assessee further contended that in the case of sister’s co…

Moreshwar Krushna Baria, Thane vs. Asst Comm of Income Tax Central Circle-3, Thane

ITA 1965/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Riddhi Mishra, CIT D.R
Section 132Section 69C

…e entire receipts as recorded in the seized documents is to be assessed as undisclosed income and relied upon the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble High Courts and Tribunal viz….. 1. CIT vs. Balbirsingh Maini, 398 ITR 531 (SC) 2. DCIT Vs. Shiv Sai Developers, 134 ITD 445 (mum) (2011) 3. Hasmukhlal M. Parikh vs. CIT, 37 ITR 359 (Bom) (1959) 4. CIT vs Shah Construction Co. Ltd 237 ITR 814 (Bom) (1999) 5. CIT vs. Ashaland Corporation, 133 ITR 55 (Guj) (1981) 6. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Rajiv A. Shah, 12 SOT 84 (Mum) (2007) 24. The Ld. AR for the assessee further contended that in the case of sister’s co…

Moreshwar Krushna Baria, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Thane

ITA 1964/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Riddhi Mishra, CIT D.R
Section 132Section 69C

…e entire receipts as recorded in the seized documents is to be assessed as undisclosed income and relied upon the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble High Courts and Tribunal viz….. 1. CIT vs. Balbirsingh Maini, 398 ITR 531 (SC) 2. DCIT Vs. Shiv Sai Developers, 134 ITD 445 (mum) (2011) 3. Hasmukhlal M. Parikh vs. CIT, 37 ITR 359 (Bom) (1959) 4. CIT vs Shah Construction Co. Ltd 237 ITR 814 (Bom) (1999) 5. CIT vs. Ashaland Corporation, 133 ITR 55 (Guj) (1981) 6. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Rajiv A. Shah, 12 SOT 84 (Mum) (2007) 24. The Ld. AR for the assessee further contended that in the case of sister’s co…

Moreshwar Krushna Baria, Thane vs. Asst Comm of Income Tax Central Circle-3, Thane

ITA 1963/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Riddhi Mishra, CIT D.R
Section 132Section 69C

…e entire receipts as recorded in the seized documents is to be assessed as undisclosed income and relied upon the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble High Courts and Tribunal viz….. 1. CIT vs. Balbirsingh Maini, 398 ITR 531 (SC) 2. DCIT Vs. Shiv Sai Developers, 134 ITD 445 (mum) (2011) 3. Hasmukhlal M. Parikh vs. CIT, 37 ITR 359 (Bom) (1959) 4. CIT vs Shah Construction Co. Ltd 237 ITR 814 (Bom) (1999) 5. CIT vs. Ashaland Corporation, 133 ITR 55 (Guj) (1981) 6. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Rajiv A. Shah, 12 SOT 84 (Mum) (2007) 24. The Ld. AR for the assessee further contended that in the case of sister’s co…

Moreshwar Krushna Baria, Thane vs. Asst Comm of Income Tax Central Circle-3, Thane

ITA 1962/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Riddhi Mishra, CIT D.R
Section 132Section 69C

…e entire receipts as recorded in the seized documents is to be assessed as undisclosed income and relied upon the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble High Courts and Tribunal viz….. 1. CIT vs. Balbirsingh Maini, 398 ITR 531 (SC) 2. DCIT Vs. Shiv Sai Developers, 134 ITD 445 (mum) (2011) 3. Hasmukhlal M. Parikh vs. CIT, 37 ITR 359 (Bom) (1959) 4. CIT vs Shah Construction Co. Ltd 237 ITR 814 (Bom) (1999) 5. CIT vs. Ashaland Corporation, 133 ITR 55 (Guj) (1981) 6. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Rajiv A. Shah, 12 SOT 84 (Mum) (2007) 24. The Ld. AR for the assessee further contended that in the case of sister’s co…

Moreshwar Krushna Baria, Thane vs. ACIT Central Circle-3, Thane

ITA 1961/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Riddhi Mishra, CIT D.R
Section 132Section 69C

…e entire receipts as recorded in the seized documents is to be assessed as undisclosed income and relied upon the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble High Courts and Tribunal viz….. 1. CIT vs. Balbirsingh Maini, 398 ITR 531 (SC) 2. DCIT Vs. Shiv Sai Developers, 134 ITD 445 (mum) (2011) 3. Hasmukhlal M. Parikh vs. CIT, 37 ITR 359 (Bom) (1959) 4. CIT vs Shah Construction Co. Ltd 237 ITR 814 (Bom) (1999) 5. CIT vs. Ashaland Corporation, 133 ITR 55 (Guj) (1981) 6. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Rajiv A. Shah, 12 SOT 84 (Mum) (2007) 24. The Ld. AR for the assessee further contended that in the case of sister’s co…

Rashmi Ameya Developers Housing & Estate Realtors P. Ltd., Palghar vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Thane

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1990/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 & Assessment Year: 2015-16 Rashmi Ameya Developers Acit, Central Circle-3, 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, Road No. Housing & Estate Realtors Pvt. Ltd., Vs. D Ii, 01 02, Akanksha Commercial 16Z, Wagale Industrial Estate, Complex, Opp. Sajavat Complex, Thane-400 604. Achole Road, Nallasopara, Dist. Palghar-401 203. Pan No. Aaecr 8508 H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Subhodh Ratnaparkhi, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Prabhat Kumar Gupta, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153C

…2020 & Ors. with the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) of treating these cash receipts as income of the assessee in the year under consideration. 10. Before us, the Ld. counsel of the assessee relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Shiv Sai developers 134 ITD 445 (Mum), which the Ld. CIT(A) has distinguished as under: “23.1 It is claimed that. in the case of Shiv Sai Developers 134 ITD 445 (Mum) 2011 the jurisdictional Mumbai tribunal held that the amount received as earnest money as advance as per seized MOU even though not recorded in books of accounts, could not be treated as income in the year where…

Cavalcade Properties P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 12(1)(4), Mumbai

Accordingly, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4030/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am& Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 4030/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, AR byFor Respondent: Shri Awangshi Gimson, DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)

…aid down in this decision that the Supreme Court concluded that in view of the obligation on the assessee to refund the amount of advance received on sale of room nights that it cannot be treated as a trading receipt.... " DCJT vs Shiv Sai Developers (2012) (134 ITD 445) (ITAT Mumbai), wherein it was held that – "...There was thus a conclusive evidence in the form of memorandum of understanding to show that the amount ofRs. 1.51 crore was received by the assessee in cash as earnest money or advance against the transaction of land. In the case ofHasmukhlal M. Parikh (supra), cited by learned counsel for the asse…

1. CIT v. Balbirsingh Maini (134 ITD 445) — Cited in 11 Judgments | BharatTax