Asst. CIT v. Ekta Sankalp Developers

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

…o disallowance of the entire claim of deduction raised by the assessee u/s 80IB of the Act, the same did find favour with the CIT(A). Observing, that the issue was covered by the order of the ITAT, Mumbai in the case of ACIT Vs. Ekta Sankalp Developers (2015) 152 ITD 805 (Mum), the CIT(A) was of the view that the deduction u/s 80IB(10) was qua the residential units and not qua the project. Accordingly, it was observed by the CIT(A) that only the residential units which exceeded the prescribed ―built-up area‖ would not be eligible for deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act. Observing, that the ―dry balcony‖ area of 30…

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

…o disallowance of the entire claim of deduction raised by the assessee u/s 80IB of the Act, the same did find favour with the CIT(A). Observing, that the issue was covered by the order of the ITAT, Mumbai in the case of ACIT Vs. Ekta Sankalp Developers (2015) 152 ITD 805 (Mum), the CIT(A) was of the view that the deduction u/s 80IB(10) was qua the residential units and not qua the project. Accordingly, it was observed by the CIT(A) that only the residential units which exceeded the prescribed ―built-up area‖ would not be eligible for deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act. Observing, that the ―dry balcony‖ area of 30…

ITO WD 2(4), Thane vs. Shiv Om Universal, Badlapur

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

…hma Associates (supra), unequivocally clarifying the project to be one as approved by the local authority and, further, a single project. This aspect of the matter stands also discussed at length by the tribunal in Asst. CIT vs. Ekta Sankalp Developers [2015] 152 ITD 805 (Mum), which was again in the context of section 80-IB(10)(c). While holding, following Brahma Associates (supra), a housing project to be a single project qua which deduction, therefore, cannot be allowed in part, the tribunal was of the view that the condition contained in section 80-IB(10)(c), however, applies qua a residential unit and not th…

ACIT Cen Cir 2, Thane vs. Salasar Developers, Thane

In the result, the questions raised in the appeal are answered thus:—

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2271/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Salasar Developers, Asst. Cit-11, बनाम/ Gr. Flr., Vrindavan, Salasar Thane Brijbhoomi, Temba Hospital Road, Vs. Bhayander (W), Thane-401 101 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aakfs 6465 R (Assessee) (Revenue) : आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2939/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बनाम/ Asst. Cit-11, Salasar Developers, Thane Thane-401 101 Vs. (Revenue) (Assessee) : : Shri Virag H. Shah Assessee By Revenue By : Shri Mohammed Rizwan सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 17.5.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 12.8.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: These Are Cross Appeals, I.E., By The Assessee & The Revenue, Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Ii, Thane (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 26.12.2012, Partly Allowing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting Its Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2009-10 Vide Order Dated 09.12.2011. 2

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “ई” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, AM AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2271/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Salasar Developers, Asst. CIT-11, बनाम/ Gr. Flr., Vrindavan, Salasar Thane Brijbhoomi, Temba Hospital Road, Vs. Bhayander (W), Thane-401 101 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. AAKFS 6465 R (Assessee) (Revenue) : आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2939/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बनाम/ Asst. CIT-11, Salasar Developers, Thane Thane-401 101 Vs. (Revenue) (Assessee) : : Shri V…

Salasar Developers, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 2, Thane

In the result, the questions raised in the appeal are answered thus:—

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2271/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Salasar Developers, Asst. Cit-11, बनाम/ Gr. Flr., Vrindavan, Salasar Thane Brijbhoomi, Temba Hospital Road, Vs. Bhayander (W), Thane-401 101 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aakfs 6465 R (Assessee) (Revenue) : आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2939/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बनाम/ Asst. Cit-11, Salasar Developers, Thane Thane-401 101 Vs. (Revenue) (Assessee) : : Shri Virag H. Shah Assessee By Revenue By : Shri Mohammed Rizwan सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 17.5.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 12.8.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: These Are Cross Appeals, I.E., By The Assessee & The Revenue, Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Ii, Thane (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 26.12.2012, Partly Allowing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting Its Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2009-10 Vide Order Dated 09.12.2011. 2

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “ई” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, AM AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2271/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Salasar Developers, Asst. CIT-11, बनाम/ Gr. Flr., Vrindavan, Salasar Thane Brijbhoomi, Temba Hospital Road, Vs. Bhayander (W), Thane-401 101 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. AAKFS 6465 R (Assessee) (Revenue) : आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2939/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बनाम/ Asst. CIT-11, Salasar Developers, Thane Thane-401 101 Vs. (Revenue) (Assessee) : : Shri V…

ITO 25(2)(2)), Mumbai vs. Prathmesh Realtors, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed on the afore-said terms

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3382/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Income Tax Officer-25(2)(2), Prathmesh Realtors बनाम/ C-11, Bldg., Room No. 106, A-101, Sweta Park, Daulat Nagar Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Kurla Complex, Road No. 2, Borivali (E), Vs. Bandra(E), Mumbai-51 Mumbai-400 066 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaifp 8580 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Pandian ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Tarun Ghia सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 16.03.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 10.06.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Revenue Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-35, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 14.2.2014, Partly Allowing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting Its Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2010-11 Vide Order Dated 12.3.2013. 2. The First Issue Under Appeal (Raised Vide Grounds 1 & 2) Is The Validity Or Otherwise In Law Of The Proportionate Deduction To The Assessee’S, A Builder & Developer, Housing Project By The Name ‘Prathmesh Heritage’, At Mira Road (E)

…, the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court has in CIT vs. Brahma Associates [2011] 333 ITR 289 (Bom) clearly held like- wise, i.e., as by the Tribunal in Viswas Promoters (P.) Ltd. (supra), as noted by the tribunal in Asst. CIT vs. Ekta Sankalp Developers [2015] 152 ITD 805 (Mum), reproducing from the said decision (refer para 31 at pgs. 302-303 of the reports) at para 5 of the order: ‘Section 80-IB(10) allows deduction to the entire project approved by the local authority and not to a part of the project. If the conditions set out in section 80-IB(10) are satisfied, then deduction is allowable on the entire project…

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

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, बी,मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “B”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी संजय अरोड़ा, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountant Member Assessment 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 "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Shri Gyaneshwar Kataram Shri D. Prabhakar Reddy-DR राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue by 0…