ACIT v. Sheth Developers Pvt. Ltd.

Om Sawmi Smaran Developers P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 8(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Ble

…v. D.S. Kulkarni Developers Ltd. vs. ACIT (Pune ITAT) ITA Nos. 1428 & 1429/PN/2008; v. ITO vs. Air Developers (Nagpur ITAT) 25 DTR 287; vi. DCIT vs. Brigade Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (Banglore ITAT) 14 DTR 371; vii. ACIT vs. Sheth Developers P. Ltd. (Mumbai ITAT) 33 SOT 277; viii. Bengal Ambuja Housing Development Ltd. vs. DCIT (Kolkata ITAT) ITA No. 1595/Kol./2005; ix. Tushar Developers vs. ITO (Pune ITAT) ITA No. 165/PN/2007 and ITA No.94/PN/2008 and x. DCIT vs. Ekta Housing Pvt. Ltd. (Mumbai ITAT) ITA No. 3649/Mum./2009 Page No. | 12 ITA NOs. 6915 & 6916/MUM/2017 M/s. Om Swami Smaran Developers Pvt. Ltd., In vie…

Om Sawmi Smaran Developers P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 8(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Ble

…v. D.S. Kulkarni Developers Ltd. vs. ACIT (Pune ITAT) ITA Nos. 1428 & 1429/PN/2008; v. ITO vs. Air Developers (Nagpur ITAT) 25 DTR 287; vi. DCIT vs. Brigade Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (Banglore ITAT) 14 DTR 371; vii. ACIT vs. Sheth Developers P. Ltd. (Mumbai ITAT) 33 SOT 277; viii. Bengal Ambuja Housing Development Ltd. vs. DCIT (Kolkata ITAT) ITA No. 1595/Kol./2005; ix. Tushar Developers vs. ITO (Pune ITAT) ITA No. 165/PN/2007 and ITA No.94/PN/2008 and x. DCIT vs. Ekta Housing Pvt. Ltd. (Mumbai ITAT) ITA No. 3649/Mum./2009 Page No. | 12 ITA NOs. 6915 & 6916/MUM/2017 M/s. Om Swami Smaran Developers Pvt. Ltd., In vie…

Asst CIT 28(1), Navi Mumbai vs. Bharat Tukaram Bhor, Navi Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 895/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Bharat Tukaram Bhor Acit–28(1), बिधम/ 218/219, Raheja Arcade, R. No. 306, 3Rd Floor, 6Th Sector- 11, Cbd Belapur, Tower, Vashi Rly Station Vs. Navi Mumbai- 400 614 Complex, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 703 (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 288/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ito 28(1)(2), Bharat Tukaram Bhor Pro. M/S Jai Gurudeo Bldr Tower No. 6 Flr Vashi Rly बिधम/ & Developers, 218/219, Station Complex, Navi Vs. Raheja Arcade, Sector-11, Mumbai- 400 703 Cbd Belapur, Navi Mumbai- 400 614 (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 287/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Bharat Tukaram Bhor Addlcit Rg 22(3), Pro. M/S Jai Gurudeo Bldr Tower No. 6, 3Rd Flr Vashi बिधम/ & Developers, 218/219, Rly Station Complex, Vashi, Vs. Raheja Arcade, Sector-11, Navi Mumbai-400 703 Cbd Belapur, Navi Mumbai- 400 614 (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

…ents of the appellant. The issue of pro-rata deduction has been the subject matter of various judicial pronouncements, some of which are cited by the appellant in his written submission. The Hon. Mumbai Tribunal in the case of ACIT v Sheth Developers Pvt. Ltd 33 SOT 277 (Mum) has allowed proportionate deduction by stating that “we are of the opinion that assessee is eligible for relief on pro-rata basis in respect of the flats which did not have a built up area exceeding 1000 sq ft in respect of Aishwarya Project. Thus, the quantum of deduction u/s 80IB(10) in respect of the Aishwarya Project for the flats which…

Asst CIT 28(1), Navi Mumbai vs. Bharat Tukaram Bhor, Navi Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 895/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Bharat Tukaram Bhor Acit–28(1), बिधम/ 218/219, Raheja Arcade, R. No. 306, 3Rd Floor, 6Th Sector- 11, Cbd Belapur, Tower, Vashi Rly Station Vs. Navi Mumbai- 400 614 Complex, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 703 (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 288/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ito 28(1)(2), Bharat Tukaram Bhor Pro. M/S Jai Gurudeo Bldr Tower No. 6 Flr Vashi Rly बिधम/ & Developers, 218/219, Station Complex, Navi Vs. Raheja Arcade, Sector-11, Mumbai- 400 703 Cbd Belapur, Navi Mumbai- 400 614 (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 287/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Bharat Tukaram Bhor Addlcit Rg 22(3), Pro. M/S Jai Gurudeo Bldr Tower No. 6, 3Rd Flr Vashi बिधम/ & Developers, 218/219, Rly Station Complex, Vashi, Vs. Raheja Arcade, Sector-11, Navi Mumbai-400 703 Cbd Belapur, Navi Mumbai- 400 614 (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

…ents of the appellant. The issue of pro-rata deduction has been the subject matter of various judicial pronouncements, some of which are cited by the appellant in his written submission. The Hon. Mumbai Tribunal in the case of ACIT v Sheth Developers Pvt. Ltd 33 SOT 277 (Mum) has allowed proportionate deduction by stating that “we are of the opinion that assessee is eligible for relief on pro-rata basis in respect of the flats which did not have a built up area exceeding 1000 sq ft in respect of Aishwarya Project. Thus, the quantum of deduction u/s 80IB(10) in respect of the Aishwarya Project for the flats which…

Asst CIT 28(1), Navi Mumbai vs. Bharat Tukaram Bhor, Navi Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 895/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Bharat Tukaram Bhor Acit–28(1), बिधम/ 218/219, Raheja Arcade, R. No. 306, 3Rd Floor, 6Th Sector- 11, Cbd Belapur, Tower, Vashi Rly Station Vs. Navi Mumbai- 400 614 Complex, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 703 (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 288/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ito 28(1)(2), Bharat Tukaram Bhor Pro. M/S Jai Gurudeo Bldr Tower No. 6 Flr Vashi Rly बिधम/ & Developers, 218/219, Station Complex, Navi Vs. Raheja Arcade, Sector-11, Mumbai- 400 703 Cbd Belapur, Navi Mumbai- 400 614 (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 287/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Bharat Tukaram Bhor Addlcit Rg 22(3), Pro. M/S Jai Gurudeo Bldr Tower No. 6, 3Rd Flr Vashi बिधम/ & Developers, 218/219, Rly Station Complex, Vashi, Vs. Raheja Arcade, Sector-11, Navi Mumbai-400 703 Cbd Belapur, Navi Mumbai- 400 614 (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

…ents of the appellant. The issue of pro-rata deduction has been the subject matter of various judicial pronouncements, some of which are cited by the appellant in his written submission. The Hon. Mumbai Tribunal in the case of ACIT v Sheth Developers Pvt. Ltd 33 SOT 277 (Mum) has allowed proportionate deduction by stating that “we are of the opinion that assessee is eligible for relief on pro-rata basis in respect of the flats which did not have a built up area exceeding 1000 sq ft in respect of Aishwarya Project. Thus, the quantum of deduction u/s 80IB(10) in respect of the Aishwarya Project for the flats which…

Bharat Tularam Bhoir, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT 28 (1), Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 895/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Bharat Tukaram Bhor Acit–28(1), बिधम/ 218/219, Raheja Arcade, R. No. 306, 3Rd Floor, 6Th Sector- 11, Cbd Belapur, Tower, Vashi Rly Station Vs. Navi Mumbai- 400 614 Complex, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 703 (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 288/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ito 28(1)(2), Bharat Tukaram Bhor Pro. M/S Jai Gurudeo Bldr Tower No. 6 Flr Vashi Rly बिधम/ & Developers, 218/219, Station Complex, Navi Vs. Raheja Arcade, Sector-11, Mumbai- 400 703 Cbd Belapur, Navi Mumbai- 400 614 (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 287/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Bharat Tukaram Bhor Addlcit Rg 22(3), Pro. M/S Jai Gurudeo Bldr Tower No. 6, 3Rd Flr Vashi बिधम/ & Developers, 218/219, Rly Station Complex, Vashi, Vs. Raheja Arcade, Sector-11, Navi Mumbai-400 703 Cbd Belapur, Navi Mumbai- 400 614 (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

…ents of the appellant. The issue of pro-rata deduction has been the subject matter of various judicial pronouncements, some of which are cited by the appellant in his written submission. The Hon. Mumbai Tribunal in the case of ACIT v Sheth Developers Pvt. Ltd 33 SOT 277 (Mum) has allowed proportionate deduction by stating that “we are of the opinion that assessee is eligible for relief on pro-rata basis in respect of the flats which did not have a built up area exceeding 1000 sq ft in respect of Aishwarya Project. Thus, the quantum of deduction u/s 80IB(10) in respect of the Aishwarya Project for the flats which…

Bharat Tukaram Bhoir, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO 28 (1)92), Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 895/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Bharat Tukaram Bhor Acit–28(1), बिधम/ 218/219, Raheja Arcade, R. No. 306, 3Rd Floor, 6Th Sector- 11, Cbd Belapur, Tower, Vashi Rly Station Vs. Navi Mumbai- 400 614 Complex, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 703 (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 288/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ito 28(1)(2), Bharat Tukaram Bhor Pro. M/S Jai Gurudeo Bldr Tower No. 6 Flr Vashi Rly बिधम/ & Developers, 218/219, Station Complex, Navi Vs. Raheja Arcade, Sector-11, Mumbai- 400 703 Cbd Belapur, Navi Mumbai- 400 614 (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 287/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Bharat Tukaram Bhor Addlcit Rg 22(3), Pro. M/S Jai Gurudeo Bldr Tower No. 6, 3Rd Flr Vashi बिधम/ & Developers, 218/219, Rly Station Complex, Vashi, Vs. Raheja Arcade, Sector-11, Navi Mumbai-400 703 Cbd Belapur, Navi Mumbai- 400 614 (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

…ents of the appellant. The issue of pro-rata deduction has been the subject matter of various judicial pronouncements, some of which are cited by the appellant in his written submission. The Hon. Mumbai Tribunal in the case of ACIT v Sheth Developers Pvt. Ltd 33 SOT 277 (Mum) has allowed proportionate deduction by stating that “we are of the opinion that assessee is eligible for relief on pro-rata basis in respect of the flats which did not have a built up area exceeding 1000 sq ft in respect of Aishwarya Project. Thus, the quantum of deduction u/s 80IB(10) in respect of the Aishwarya Project for the flats which…

Bharat Tukaram Bhoir, Mumbai vs. Addlcit RG 22 (3), Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 895/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Bharat Tukaram Bhor Acit–28(1), बिधम/ 218/219, Raheja Arcade, R. No. 306, 3Rd Floor, 6Th Sector- 11, Cbd Belapur, Tower, Vashi Rly Station Vs. Navi Mumbai- 400 614 Complex, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 703 (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 288/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ito 28(1)(2), Bharat Tukaram Bhor Pro. M/S Jai Gurudeo Bldr Tower No. 6 Flr Vashi Rly बिधम/ & Developers, 218/219, Station Complex, Navi Vs. Raheja Arcade, Sector-11, Mumbai- 400 703 Cbd Belapur, Navi Mumbai- 400 614 (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 287/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Bharat Tukaram Bhor Addlcit Rg 22(3), Pro. M/S Jai Gurudeo Bldr Tower No. 6, 3Rd Flr Vashi बिधम/ & Developers, 218/219, Rly Station Complex, Vashi, Vs. Raheja Arcade, Sector-11, Navi Mumbai-400 703 Cbd Belapur, Navi Mumbai- 400 614 (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

…ents of the appellant. The issue of pro-rata deduction has been the subject matter of various judicial pronouncements, some of which are cited by the appellant in his written submission. The Hon. Mumbai Tribunal in the case of ACIT v Sheth Developers Pvt. Ltd 33 SOT 277 (Mum) has allowed proportionate deduction by stating that “we are of the opinion that assessee is eligible for relief on pro-rata basis in respect of the flats which did not have a built up area exceeding 1000 sq ft in respect of Aishwarya Project. Thus, the quantum of deduction u/s 80IB(10) in respect of the Aishwarya Project for the flats which…

The Jt. Comm. of Income Tax (OSD) Cent. Cir-6(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. Cosmos En Terprises, Thane

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blejt.Cit(Osd)-Central Circle – 6(4) V. M/S. Cosmos Enterprises Room No. 1925, 19Th Floor 201, “Arihant”, Parsi Agyari Lane Air India Building, Nariman Point Tembhi Naka, Thane (W) Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai – 400602 Pan: Aaefc2382F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi Department By : Shri Nihar Ranjan Samal

…The issue has come up in various similar cases of the housing projects whereby the courts have held the view that in case of such violations, the deduction u/s. 80IB(10) should be allowed on prorata basis. 11. In the case of ACIT-vs-Sheth Developers (P) Ltd. 33 SOT 277 dt. 25.06.2009, the jurisdictional ITAT, Mumbai while deciding the similar issue, it has held that: "Thus, without doubt, by the assessee's own admission, at lest in a few cases the built-up area exceeded 1000 sq. ft. Now the question was section 80IB(10) could to a project even where some of the units exceeded 1000 sq ft. of built-up area. As afo…

Harshvardhan Constructions, Mumbai vs. ITO 23(1)(5), Mumbai

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Ravish Soodharshvardhan Constructions Income Tax Officer 11, Happy Home, 244 Waterfield Road; Ward 23(1)(5), 1St Floor, Vs. Bandra West, Mumbai – 400 050. Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai – 400 007. Pan– Aadfh6590D (Appellant) (Respondent) Income Tax Officer Vs. Harshvardhan Construvctions Ward 23(1)(5), 1St Floor , 11, Happy Home, 244 Waterfield Road; Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Bandra West, Mumbai – 400 050. Mumbai – 400 007. Pan– Aadfh6590D Harshvardhan Constructions Income Tax Officer 11, Happy Home, 244 Waterfield Road; Ward 23(1)(5), 1St Floor, Vs. Bandra West, Mumbai – 400 050. Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai – 400 007. Pan– Aadfh6590D

…3 ITR 49 (Mad). Also, a similar view had been taken by various co- ordinate benches of the Tribunal in viz.(i). DCIT vs. Brigade Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.,(20Q8) 119 TT J (Bang) 269; (ii). AIR Developers.,(2010) 122 ITD 125 (Nag); (iii). Sheh Developers Pvt. Ltd. 33 SOT 277 (Bom); (iv). Runwal Multihousing Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT, ITA Nos. 1015, 1016 & 1017/PN/2011; (v) Brahma Associates Vs JCIT, 119 ITD 255 (Bom); (vi). Kumar Builders Consortium Vs ACIT, 7 Taxcorp (AT) 32844 (Pune); (vii). Tushar Developers Vs ITO, 6 Taxcorp (AT) 30190 (Pune); (viii). Kumrar Beharey Rathi & Raviraj Kothari Punjabi Associates Vs DCIT, 22 D…

ITO 23(1)(5), Mumbai vs. Harshvardhan Constructions, Mumbai

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Ravish Soodharshvardhan Constructions Income Tax Officer 11, Happy Home, 244 Waterfield Road; Ward 23(1)(5), 1St Floor, Vs. Bandra West, Mumbai – 400 050. Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai – 400 007. Pan– Aadfh6590D (Appellant) (Respondent) Income Tax Officer Vs. Harshvardhan Construvctions Ward 23(1)(5), 1St Floor , 11, Happy Home, 244 Waterfield Road; Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Bandra West, Mumbai – 400 050. Mumbai – 400 007. Pan– Aadfh6590D Harshvardhan Constructions Income Tax Officer 11, Happy Home, 244 Waterfield Road; Ward 23(1)(5), 1St Floor, Vs. Bandra West, Mumbai – 400 050. Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai – 400 007. Pan– Aadfh6590D

…3 ITR 49 (Mad). Also, a similar view had been taken by various co- ordinate benches of the Tribunal in viz.(i). DCIT vs. Brigade Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.,(20Q8) 119 TT J (Bang) 269; (ii). AIR Developers.,(2010) 122 ITD 125 (Nag); (iii). Sheh Developers Pvt. Ltd. 33 SOT 277 (Bom); (iv). Runwal Multihousing Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT, ITA Nos. 1015, 1016 & 1017/PN/2011; (v) Brahma Associates Vs JCIT, 119 ITD 255 (Bom); (vi). Kumar Builders Consortium Vs ACIT, 7 Taxcorp (AT) 32844 (Pune); (vii). Tushar Developers Vs ITO, 6 Taxcorp (AT) 30190 (Pune); (viii). Kumrar Beharey Rathi & Raviraj Kothari Punjabi Associates Vs DCIT, 22 D…

ACIT 25(1), Mumbai vs. Amber Enterprises, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri, Amarjit Singh Jm Acit 25(1) Vs. M/S. Amber Enterprises Mumbai – 400 051 7, Taren Compound Behind Krishna Hotel Dahisar (E) Mumbai – 400 068 Pan/Gir No. Aalfa3071G Appellant) .. Respondent)

…ndition also. Even otherwise, if some of this units in the housing project exceeded the area limit given above, relief under Section 80IB must be given on pro-rata basis based on the following judicial pronouncement. a. CIT Vs Sheth Developer. (P) Ltd. (2009) 33 SOT 277 ( Mum.) b. SJR Builder v. CIT (2010) 3 ITR (Trib.) 569 (Bang.) 4. None of the residential unit exceed the maximum limit of 1000 sq. ft. Built-up area in the present case. Hence our project falls under the above category. 5. In the present project, one residential unit is allotted to only one person/company in accordance with the condition No.6 of…

Asst CIT Cir 21(3), Mumbai vs. Suncity Housing, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5183/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11)

…ats, deduction u/s. 80IB of the Act has to be restricted to the flats having area less than 1000 square feet:- “a) ITO v. Air Developers, (25 DTR 287 (Nag.) ) b) DCIT v. Brigade Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., (14 DTR 371(Bang.)) c) ACIT v. Sheth Developers P. Ltd., (33 SOT 277 (Mum.)) d) Bengal Ambuja Housing Development Ltd. v DCIT ITA No 1595/ Kol/ 2005 e) Arpanna Development Corp. v. ITO f) SJR Builders v. ACIT,(3 ITR 569 (Mum.) ITA 5183/Mum/2014 11 g) G.V. Corpn. V. ITO, 43 DTR 329 (Mum.) h) CI'T v. Brahma Associates, judgment dated 22.2.2011 (Born.). i) Ekta Housing Pvt, Ltd. v. DCIT'(ITA no. 3649/Mum./2009) j)…

Asst CIT Cen Cir 29 Cen RG 7, Mumbai vs. Haware Engg. & Builders P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar

…project approved up to 31 March, 2007, the denial of deduction, in our view, is clearly not in accordance with law”. Similar view has been taken by ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Hiranandani Akruti JV v. DCIT (2010) 39 SOT 498 (Mum) and ACIT v. Sheth Developers 33 SOT 277 (Bom) wherein they have followed the judgement of ITAT in Saroj Sales Organization (supra). The ITAT, Ahmedabad in the case of Raj Developers v. ITO (2011) 43 SOT 184 (Ahmd) have also followed the decision of Division Benches in the case Aruna Excello Foundation Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2007) 108 TTJ (Chennai) 71 and Saroj Organization M/s. Haware Engg.…

Neelkanth Palm Realty, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 15(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Sanjay Aroraassessment Year:2008-09 M/S Neelkanth Palm Addl.Cit, Realty Fine House, Range-(15)(3), Anandji Lane, 5Th Floor, Matru Mandir, M.G. Road, Ghatkopar (E), Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400077 Mumbai ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaefn5224B

…imed only on 144 units having built up area below 1000 sq.ft. which is allowable as per law. In support of his contentions, learned AR relied on the following decisions :- i) G.V. Corporation Vs. ITO, 38 SOT 174(Mum); ii) ACIT Vs. Sheth Developers (P) Ltd., 33 SOT 277 (Mum); iii) Viswas Promoters (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT, 255 CTR 149; iv) SJR Builders Vs. ACIT, ITA No.1192/B/2008, dtd.21.8.2009(Bang) v) Sanghvi & Doshi Enterprise Vs. ITO, 131 ITD 151(Chennai); vi) ITO Vs. AIR Developers, 122 ITD 125 (Nag); vii) DCIT Vs. Brigade Enterprises P. Ltd., 28 SOT 7 (Bang); viii) DCIT Vs. Parkway Development, ITA No.1419/Bang/…

I.T.O. WD 1(3), Thane vs. Astavinayaka Developers, Thane

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

…:- (a) Bengal Ambuja Housing Development Ltd Vs. DCIT (ITA No.1595/Kol/2005 & 1735/Kol/2005 dated 24.3.2006) (b) Bengal Ambuja Housing development Ltd (ITA No.458 of 2006 dated 05-01-2007) of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court. (c) ACIT Vs. Sheth Developers (P) Ltd (33 SOT 277)(Mum) (d) G.V. Corporation Vs. ITO (38 SOT 174)(Mum) (e) Poddar & Ashish Developers Vs. ITO (152 ITD 117)(Mum) (f) CIT Vs. Sreeevatsa Real Estates P Ltd (222 Taxman 105)(Mad) (g) CIT Vs. Arun Excello Foundations P Ltd (259 CTR 362)(Mad). In view of the above, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of Ld CIT(A) on this issue also.…

DCIT (OSD-II) C RG 7, Mumbai vs. Skyline Residencyh P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.6910&6912/Mum/2011 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2007-08 & 2008-09) M/S Skyline Residency Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit-(Osd)-Ii, Central Range-7, 4Th Floor, Aykar Acme Compound, Premier Road, Ghatkopar (West), Bhavan, Mumbai Mumbai-400086 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aabcj 2532 L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.7311&7312/Mum/2011 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2007-08 & 2008-09) Dcit-(Osd)-Ii, Central Vs. M/S Skyline Residency Pvt. Range-7, 4Th Floor, Aykar Ltd., Acme Compound, Bhavan, Mumbai Premier Road, Ghatkopar (West), Mumbai-400086 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aabcj 2532 L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Manjunatha R. Swamy सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 29/10/2015 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 16/12/2015 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A), Mumbai, For The Assessment Years 2007-08 & 2008-09, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.143(3) Of The I.T.Act. 2. Common Grounds Have Been Taken In Both The Years Under Consideration, Therefore, Appeals For Both The Years Were Heard Together

…nce of separate 'books of account. Therefore, the ITAT held that the Revenue was not right in treating both the projects as one without the facts warranting for such conclusion. 4.10 The Id.AR's reliance on the case of ACIT VS.Sheth Developers (P) Ltd. (2009) 33 SOT 277 (Mum) at the end of his argument is also very relevant. In this case, the Hon'ble ITAT have referred to Special Bench decision in the case of Brahma Associates vJt. CIT [ITA,No.1417 (PN) of 2006] for allowing pro rata relief even where the appellant had utilized space for commercial purpose upto 10% in an approved housing project. Following the ra…

Skyline Residency P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT (OSD II) Cen RG 7, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.6910&6912/Mum/2011 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2007-08 & 2008-09) M/S Skyline Residency Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit-(Osd)-Ii, Central Range-7, 4Th Floor, Aykar Acme Compound, Premier Road, Ghatkopar (West), Bhavan, Mumbai Mumbai-400086 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aabcj 2532 L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.7311&7312/Mum/2011 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2007-08 & 2008-09) Dcit-(Osd)-Ii, Central Vs. M/S Skyline Residency Pvt. Range-7, 4Th Floor, Aykar Ltd., Acme Compound, Bhavan, Mumbai Premier Road, Ghatkopar (West), Mumbai-400086 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aabcj 2532 L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Manjunatha R. Swamy सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 29/10/2015 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 16/12/2015 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A), Mumbai, For The Assessment Years 2007-08 & 2008-09, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.143(3) Of The I.T.Act. 2. Common Grounds Have Been Taken In Both The Years Under Consideration, Therefore, Appeals For Both The Years Were Heard Together

…nce of separate 'books of account. Therefore, the ITAT held that the Revenue was not right in treating both the projects as one without the facts warranting for such conclusion. 4.10 The Id.AR's reliance on the case of ACIT VS.Sheth Developers (P) Ltd. (2009) 33 SOT 277 (Mum) at the end of his argument is also very relevant. In this case, the Hon'ble ITAT have referred to Special Bench decision in the case of Brahma Associates vJt. CIT [ITA,No.1417 (PN) of 2006] for allowing pro rata relief even where the appellant had utilized space for commercial purpose upto 10% in an approved housing project. Following the ra…