ACIT v. Bharat Udyog Ltd.

Patel Pratibha Jv, Mumbai vs. ITO 31(2)(5), Mumbai

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Saktijit Dey

…etc. which was in domain of the government, that the government was the developer. For this purpose reliance may be placed on the decision of the Mumbai ITAT in the case of ACIT v. M/s Pratibha Industries Limited 141 ITO 151) and ACIT vs Bharat Udyog Limited 24 SOT 412 and decision of Jaipur ITAT M/s. Patel Pratibha JV in matter of Om Metal Infraprojects Limited ITA 722/JP/200S and decision of the Rajkot ITAT in the case of M/s Tarmat Bel JV ITA 1111/RJT/2010 and decision of Pune bench of ITAT in matter of Mahalaxmi Construction Corporation Limited v. ACIT ITA. 433/PN/2007 and decision of Pune bench of ITAT in…

Patel Pratibha Jv, Mumbai vs. ITO 31(2)(5), Mumbai

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Saktijit Dey

…etc. which was in domain of the government, that the government was the developer. For this purpose reliance may be placed on the decision of the Mumbai ITAT in the case of ACIT v. M/s Pratibha Industries Limited 141 ITO 151) and ACIT vs Bharat Udyog Limited 24 SOT 412 and decision of Jaipur ITAT M/s. Patel Pratibha JV in matter of Om Metal Infraprojects Limited ITA 722/JP/200S and decision of the Rajkot ITAT in the case of M/s Tarmat Bel JV ITA 1111/RJT/2010 and decision of Pune bench of ITAT in matter of Mahalaxmi Construction Corporation Limited v. ACIT ITA. 433/PN/2007 and decision of Pune bench of ITAT in…

Patel Pratibha Jv, Mumbai vs. DCIT 24(1), Mumbai

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Saktijit Dey

…etc. which was in domain of the government, that the government was the developer. For this purpose reliance may be placed on the decision of the Mumbai ITAT in the case of ACIT v. M/s Pratibha Industries Limited 141 ITO 151) and ACIT vs Bharat Udyog Limited 24 SOT 412 and decision of Jaipur ITAT M/s. Patel Pratibha JV in matter of Om Metal Infraprojects Limited ITA 722/JP/200S and decision of the Rajkot ITAT in the case of M/s Tarmat Bel JV ITA 1111/RJT/2010 and decision of Pune bench of ITAT in matter of Mahalaxmi Construction Corporation Limited v. ACIT ITA. 433/PN/2007 and decision of Pune bench of ITAT in…

ITO 18(20(4), Mumbai vs. Unity Ratibha Consortium, Mumbai

In the result both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Ito – 18(2)(4), Mumbai Vs. M/S.Unity Pratibha Consortium, 1252, Pushpanjali, Old Prabhadevi Road, Dadar – West, Mumbai – 400 012 Pan/Gir No. Aaaau1491N Appellant) .. Respondent) Revenue By Shri B.S. Bist Assessee By Shri Harshavardhana Datar Date Of Hearing 23/03/2017 Date Of Pronouncement 31/03/2017

…lause of operating of Infrastructure facility is not fulfilled by the appellant since it is not applicable to it, it is entitled to claim deduction u/s.80-IA. 4.5 It has been further observed by the Hon Mumbai ITAT in matter of the ACIT v Bharat Udyog Limited 24 SOT 412 that- "9. The interpretation of revenue is absurd also in view of the rational of the provisions of section BO-IA (4) (I). From the assessment year 2000-01, deduction is available if the assessee carries on the business of anyone of the abovementioned three types of activities. When an assessee is only developing an infrastructure facility/project…

ACIT/DCIT 31(2), Mumbai vs. Patel Pratibha Jv, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

…des placing its own funds at risk and peril. It is worth mentioning here that the same Pratibha Industries Limited is the member cum partner in assessee JV. 7.5. It has been further observed by the Hon Mumbai IT AT in matter of the ACIT v Bharat Udyog Limited 24 SOT 412 that , "9. The interpretation of revenue is absurd also in view of the rational of the provisions of section BO-IA (4) ( i). From the assessment year 2000-01, deduction is available if the assessee carries on the business of anyone of the abovementioned three types of activities. When an assessee is only developing an infrastructure facility/proje…

Niraj Cement Structurals Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen RG 36, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Niraj Cement Structurals Ltd., Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Niraj House, Opp. Deonar Bus Income Tax, Central Circle, Depot, Deonar, Mumbai 400 088 Range -36, Room No.11, Ground Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai 400 020 Pan: Aabcn 1596J .. Appellant Respondent Appellant By .. Shri Y. P. Trivedi Ms. Usha Dalal, Ars Respondent By .. Shri N. P. Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing .. 01-06-16 Date Of Pronouncement 12-08-16

…claimed deduction u/s 80-IA (4) of the Act amounting to Rs.10,42,60,228/- on sub-contract receipts from the above parties claiming to be in execution of infrastructure projects in the light of the decision of the ITAT in the case of ACIT Vs Bharat Udyog Ltd. 118 ITD 336 (Mum.). The AO disallowed the claim of deduction and added the same to the returned income of the assessee. The AO initiated proceedings u/s 271 (1) (c) of the Act for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The quantum addition was not challenged by the assessee and it has become final. The AO levied penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) of the Act fo…

Asst CIT Cen Cir 25, Mumbai vs. Patel Engineering Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed, whereas cross objection of the assessee is allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove

…from SSNNL. This objection of the Revenue, in our view, is quite misconceived because a developer would have income only if he is paid for development of the infrastructure facility. The Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Bharat Udyog Ltd., 118 ITD 336 (Mum) noted that the business activity of the nature „build and transfer‟ also falls within the eligible activities for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. The Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal has made the aforesaid observations in the context of objection raised before it regarding the claim u/s 80IA of the Act on the ground that assessee was paid by the…

DCIT Cen Cir 36, Mumbai vs. M/S. Niraj Cement Structurals Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit Cen Cir 36 M/S. Niraj Cement Structurals R.No.11, बनाम/ Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan,, Ground Floor, Sunder Baug, Vs. Mumbai-400020. Niraj House, Opp. Deonar Depot. Deonar, Mumbai-400088 (Revenue) (Respondent) P.A. No.Aabcn1596J Revenue By Shri S.S. Kumaran (Dr) Respondent By None (Ar)

…only on 12.5.2007, thus apparently, the assessee could not have visualised the retrospective amendment in the law. Moreover, the assessee had filed its return of income relying upon the decision of Mumbai bench of ITAT in the case of ACIT vs Bharat Udyog Ltd 123 TTJ 689 (Mum), wherein it was held that an assessee having entered into an agreement with the Government agency for developing of its projects is obviously a contract that does not derogate that assessee from being a developer and claim for deduction u/s 80lA(4) by the said assessee, cannot be denied. Thus, in our considered view, it can certainly be sai…