Brahma Associates v. JCIT

119 ITD 255Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2009#4413 most cited

What is Brahma Associates v. JCIT authority for?

A housing project developer is eligible for a proportionate deduction under Section 80IB(10) if the residential units meet the criteria, even if some units are below the specified built-up area, provided the project otherwise complies with the conditions.

27

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2020.

Also referred to as

Brahma Associates v JCIT · 119 ITD 255 · Section 80IB(10) · proportionate deduction · housing project · built-up area · residential units

Also reported as

30 SOT 155122 TTJ 433

Judgments citing Brahma Associates v. JCIT

SMT. JAYABEN GOVINDJI PATEL,,SURAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(3),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 238/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Sept 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Court) Smt. Jayaben Govindji Patil, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Plot No.2, Gurukrupa Bunglow, Opp. Income Tax, Circle-1(3), Sargam Shopping Center, Near Umra Surat Jakat Naka, Surat – 395001. Pan : Arfp1732Q Appellant Respondednt

Section 143(3)Section 80I

…ect was incurred by the, assessee and his son. furrier, the following case laws CIT Vs. Laxmi PD. & Sons 316 ITR 330, Sudhir Nagpal and Others vs. ITO 349 ITR 636 (P & H), Baryyopd Estate Vs. State of Tamil Nadu 215 ITR 0520 (Mad), Brahma; Associates Vs. JCIT 119 ITD 255 (Pune) (SB), Hansa Dalakoti Vs. ACIT in ITA N6.3352/Del/201f (Del) and ITO Vs. S. Venkataiah in ITA No.52 SOT 434 (Hyd) are supports the case of the assessee.” 12. Our view is Further, fortified from the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. Shrayanee Constructions [2012] 22 taxmann.com 250 (Kar.) wherein it was has held…

HARSHVARDHAN CONSTRUCTIONS,MUMBAI vs. ITO 23(1)(5), MUMBAI

ITA 5225/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S.C Tiwari, CIT D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80I

…nterprises 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 DTR 1 (Pune); (ix). Jindal Mittal Griha (2017) 51 CCH 240 (Pune); Nirman Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO and (x). Varun Developers Vs DCIT, 7 Tax…

ITO 23(1)(5), MUMBAI vs. HARSHVARDHAN CONSTRUCTIONS, MUMBAI

ITA 5912/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S.C Tiwari, CIT D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80I

…nterprises 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 DTR 1 (Pune); (ix). Jindal Mittal Griha (2017) 51 CCH 240 (Pune); Nirman Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO and (x). Varun Developers Vs DCIT, 7 Tax…

VIKRAM DEVELOPERS & PROMOTERS,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2796/PUN/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2795 & 2796/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Vikram Developers & Promoters, 19, Shrikrishna Heights, Ganeshkhind Road, Shivaji Nagar, Pune-411005. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aagfv4298R बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Central Circle-2(1), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Kishor Phadke Revenue By : Shri Milind Chahure सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 14.11.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: There Are Two Appeals Under Consideration Filed By The Assessee Against The Common Orders Of The Cit(A)-12, Pune Dated 08.09.2016 For The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively. Preliminary Issue - Condonation Of Delay – Both Appeals 2. Before Us, At The Outset, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Both The Appeals Could Not Be Filed In Time & The Said Appeals Were Filed With The Delay Of 01 Day. In This Regard, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Delay Is Unintentional & Prayed For Condoning The Same. 3. After Hearing Both The Sides & Considering The Smallness Of Delay In Filing Of Both The Appeals, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeals Of The Assessee In The Following Paragraphs. 4. The Facts & Grounds Are Common In Both The Appeals, Therefore, Both The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Composite Order. Accordingly, The Appeal-Wise Adjudication Is Taken Up In The Following Paragraphs.

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chahure
Section 132Section 68Section 80I

…ls filed by the Income Tax Department are hereby dismissed. Appeals of the assessees are allowed deleting the surcharge levied by the assessing officer for this block assessment pertaining to the period prior to 1st June, 2002. 3. Brahma Associates Vs. JCIT – 119 ITD 255 (SB) (Pune) 86 ……….. ……….. The amendment brought about by the insertion of cl. (d) in s.80-IB(10), in our understanding, is a substantive amendment and it is applicable from the date the legislature has so specifically provided i.e. 1st April, 2005. 4. CIT V. Brahma Associates – 333 ITR 289 (Bombay) 29. Lastly, the argument of the Revenue that s.…

M/S. VIKRAM DEVELOPERS & PROMOTERS,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2795/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2795 & 2796/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Vikram Developers & Promoters, 19, Shrikrishna Heights, Ganeshkhind Road, Shivaji Nagar, Pune-411005. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aagfv4298R बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Central Circle-2(1), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Kishor Phadke Revenue By : Shri Milind Chahure सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 14.11.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: There Are Two Appeals Under Consideration Filed By The Assessee Against The Common Orders Of The Cit(A)-12, Pune Dated 08.09.2016 For The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively. Preliminary Issue - Condonation Of Delay – Both Appeals 2. Before Us, At The Outset, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Both The Appeals Could Not Be Filed In Time & The Said Appeals Were Filed With The Delay Of 01 Day. In This Regard, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Delay Is Unintentional & Prayed For Condoning The Same. 3. After Hearing Both The Sides & Considering The Smallness Of Delay In Filing Of Both The Appeals, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeals Of The Assessee In The Following Paragraphs. 4. The Facts & Grounds Are Common In Both The Appeals, Therefore, Both The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Composite Order. Accordingly, The Appeal-Wise Adjudication Is Taken Up In The Following Paragraphs.

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chahure
Section 132Section 68Section 80I

…ls filed by the Income Tax Department are hereby dismissed. Appeals of the assessees are allowed deleting the surcharge levied by the assessing officer for this block assessment pertaining to the period prior to 1st June, 2002. 3. Brahma Associates Vs. JCIT – 119 ITD 255 (SB) (Pune) 86 ……….. ……….. The amendment brought about by the insertion of cl. (d) in s.80-IB(10), in our understanding, is a substantive amendment and it is applicable from the date the legislature has so specifically provided i.e. 1st April, 2005. 4. CIT V. Brahma Associates – 333 ITR 289 (Bombay) 29. Lastly, the argument of the Revenue that s.…

M/S. PIYUSH BUILDWELL INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, FARIDABAD

The appeal of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2067/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Oct 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishim/S. Piyush Colonizers Limited, Vs. Acit, A-16/B-1, Mohan Co-Op. Central Circle-I, Industrial Estate, Main Mathura Faridabad Road, New Delhi Pan: Aadcp7023J (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. M/S. Piyush Colonizers Central Circle-I, Limited, Faridabad A-16/B-1, Mohan Co-Op Industrial Estate, Main Mathura Road, New Delhi Pan: Aadcp7023J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt Sulekha Verma, CIT DR

…uated within the city of Delhi on within 25 km from the Minister limits of the cities. Therefore, he rejected the argument of the assessee. However, he accepted the assessee must get the proportionate deduction based on the decision of the coordinate bench in 30 SOT 155. He held that appellant is eligible for benefit of proportionate deduction after considering the area of residential units having a built up area of less than 1000 ft². However in view of the contradicting facts stated by the appellant in its written submissions before him and in the assessment order he directed the learned assessing officer to ve…

ACIT, FARIDABAD vs. M/S PIYUSH COLONIZERS LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1972/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Oct 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishim/S. Piyush Colonizers Limited, Vs. Acit, A-16/B-1, Mohan Co-Op. Central Circle-I, Industrial Estate, Main Mathura Faridabad Road, New Delhi Pan: Aadcp7023J (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. M/S. Piyush Colonizers Central Circle-I, Limited, Faridabad A-16/B-1, Mohan Co-Op Industrial Estate, Main Mathura Road, New Delhi Pan: Aadcp7023J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt Sulekha Verma, CIT DR

…uated within the city of Delhi on within 25 km from the Minister limits of the cities. Therefore, he rejected the argument of the assessee. However, he accepted the assessee must get the proportionate deduction based on the decision of the coordinate bench in 30 SOT 155. He held that appellant is eligible for benefit of proportionate deduction after considering the area of residential units having a built up area of less than 1000 ft². However in view of the contradicting facts stated by the appellant in its written submissions before him and in the assessment order he directed the learned assessing officer to ve…

ACIT, FARIDABAD vs. M/S PIYUSH BUILDWELL (INDIA) LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1971/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Oct 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishim/S. Piyush Colonizers Limited, Vs. Acit, A-16/B-1, Mohan Co-Op. Central Circle-I, Industrial Estate, Main Mathura Faridabad Road, New Delhi Pan: Aadcp7023J (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. M/S. Piyush Colonizers Central Circle-I, Limited, Faridabad A-16/B-1, Mohan Co-Op Industrial Estate, Main Mathura Road, New Delhi Pan: Aadcp7023J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt Sulekha Verma, CIT DR

…uated within the city of Delhi on within 25 km from the Minister limits of the cities. Therefore, he rejected the argument of the assessee. However, he accepted the assessee must get the proportionate deduction based on the decision of the coordinate bench in 30 SOT 155. He held that appellant is eligible for benefit of proportionate deduction after considering the area of residential units having a built up area of less than 1000 ft². However in view of the contradicting facts stated by the appellant in its written submissions before him and in the assessment order he directed the learned assessing officer to ve…

M/S PIYUSH COLONIZERS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, FARIDABAD

The appeal of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1644/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Oct 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishim/S. Piyush Colonizers Limited, Vs. Acit, A-16/B-1, Mohan Co-Op. Central Circle-I, Industrial Estate, Main Mathura Faridabad Road, New Delhi Pan: Aadcp7023J (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. M/S. Piyush Colonizers Central Circle-I, Limited, Faridabad A-16/B-1, Mohan Co-Op Industrial Estate, Main Mathura Road, New Delhi Pan: Aadcp7023J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt Sulekha Verma, CIT DR

…uated within the city of Delhi on within 25 km from the Minister limits of the cities. Therefore, he rejected the argument of the assessee. However, he accepted the assessee must get the proportionate deduction based on the decision of the coordinate bench in 30 SOT 155. He held that appellant is eligible for benefit of proportionate deduction after considering the area of residential units having a built up area of less than 1000 ft². However in view of the contradicting facts stated by the appellant in its written submissions before him and in the assessment order he directed the learned assessing officer to ve…

ITO, WARD-36(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. SHREE KRISHNA DEVELOPERS, KOLKATA

ITA 1956/KOL/2014[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Oct 2018AY 2008-2009
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…f 2071 sq. ft. even if as calculated by the AO is only 1.42% of the aggregate of the built up area of the total project. Thus, the total built up area used for dwelling units comes to 98.58%. As per the Special Bench order in Brahma Associates Vs. JCIT (2009) 119 ITD 255 (Pune, SB), the Special Bench answered the question as to whether in any other case where 90% or more of total built up area is used for dwelling units, in accordance with scheme of section 80IB(10) of the Act, benefit of [Assessment Year: 2008-09] deduction u/s. 80IB(10) of the Act would not be declined was answered in the affirmative in favor o…

I.T.O WD - 36(2),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SHREE KRISHNA DEVELOPERS, KOLKATA

ITA 568/KOL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Aug 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. P.M.Jagtap & Sh. S.S. Viswanethra Ravi[Assessment Year: 2006-07] Vs Ito, M/S. Shree Krishna Developers, Ward-36(2), 78, Bentinck Street, 5Th Floor, Kolkata. Kolkata-700001. Pan-Aaaas9791F (Appellant) (Respondent) [Assessment Year: 2007-08] Vs Ito, Shree Krishna Developers, Ward-36(2), 133, Canning Street, Kolkata. ‘Chopra House’, Kolkata-700001. Pan-Aaaas9791F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Shallong Yaden, Addl. Cit Dr Respondent By Sh.D.S.Damle, Fca Date Of Hearing 18.06.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 31.08.2018 Order

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 80I

…f 2071 sq. ft. even if as calculated by the AO is only 1.42% of the aggregate of the built up area of the total project. Thus, the total built up area used for dwelling units comes to 98.58%. As per the Special Bench order in Brahma Associates Vs. JCIT (2009) 119 ITD 255 (Pune, SB), the Special Bench answered the question as to whether in any other case where 90% or more of total built up area is used for dwelling units, in accordance with scheme of section 80IB(10) of the Act, benefit of deduction u/s. 80IB(10) of the Act would not be declined was answered in the affirmative in favor of assessee. So, we note tha…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. OM ASSOCIATES,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1031/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.1031/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 वष"

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Navaljit Kapoor, CIT
Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…lete Building A by the due date. Eventually, the AO, relying on the decision of Chennai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vishwas Promoters Pvt. Ltd. 12 ITD 263 and the decision of Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Brahma Associates and Others 122 TTJ 433 (SB) (Pune), denied the entire claim of deduction u/s.80IB(10) of the Act by holding as holder : “20. The issue of pro-rata deduction has been set to rest by the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Brahma Associates 333 ITR 289 wherein the Hon’ble Court has held that the question of allowing deduction to a part of the proje…

THE ITO, WARD-9(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. SHRI HARI ASSOCIATES, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1874/AHD/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Aug 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Royincome Tax Appeal No.1874/Ahd/2011 (Assessment Year : 2008-09) & Income Tax (Search &Seizer)Appeal Nos. 128, 129 &130/Ahd/2014 (Assessment Years : 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08)

For Appellant: Shri Jagdish, CIT-D.RFor Respondent: Shri P. M. Mehta, A.R
Section 143(3)Section 53ASection 80I

…ITA No.1874/Ahd/2011 & IT(SS)A No.128, 129, 130/Ahd/2014 M/s. Shri Hari Associates Asst. Years 2008-09, 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08 Finally the ratio of commercial area considered by ITAT Special Bench, Pune in the case of Brahma Associates-vs-JCIT reported in 119 ITD 255 which was subsequently considered by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Appeal No.1194/10 on 20.02.2011 was duly taken care of the Learned CIT(A) in the order challenge. Thus, it appears from the order passed by the first appellate authority that the mandate and/or direction and/or guidelines as framed by the Hon’ble Tribunal by its order dated 13…

HIGH RISE CONSTRUCTION,NAGPUR vs. I.T.O. WARD 1(5), NAGPUR

In the result this appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 285/NAG/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Jan 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya.

For Appellant: Shri Manoj MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri A.R. Ninawe
Section 250Section 80I

…e decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of M/s Arun Excello Foundations P. Ltd. vide order dated 19- 10-2012 passed in ITA No. 1348 & 1349/2007 and also the decision of the Special Bench of ITAT in the case of CIT vs. Brahma Associates reported in 119 ITD 255. 11. In this regard learned counsel of the assessee’s reliance upon jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Cajetano Mario Pereira in Tax Appeal No. 22 of 2014 and 23 of 2014 vide order dated 5th 11 ITA No. 285/Nag/2015. March, 2014 support the case of the assessee. Hence I direct the AO to examine the contentions of the asses…

DCIT,CIRCLE-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. R.D. ESTATES & RESOURCES LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and cross objections of the assessee are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 1343/KOL/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 May 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: : Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri K.K Chaparia, FCA, ld.ARFor Respondent: none appeared
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80I

…rcial establishments. Hence the only question is whether the amendments in section 80IB(l0) bought w.e.f. 01-04-2005 has retrospective applicability. The Learned CITA placed reliance on the Special Bench of Pune ITAT in the case of Brahma Associates Vs. JCIT (119 ITD 255) wherein it was held that the amendment made by the Finance (No.2) Act 2004 enacting clause (d) in section 80(IB)(10) was not retrospective in operation and would be applicable only from AY 2005-06. He also found that the above decision was also upheld by Hon'ble Mumbai High Court. The Hon'ble High Court in its decision reported in 197 Taxman 459…

RAMPRASD AGARWAL,THANE vs. ITO WD 2(2), THANE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and both the cross appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 874/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2008-2009

For Appellant: Shri. Virag H. ShahFor Respondent: Shri. B.S. Bist
Section 143(2)Section 80I

…with by the Co-ordinate Bench at Mumbai in the case of Saroj Sales Organisation v/s ITO reported in 115 TTJ 485 (Mumbai), Hiranandani Akruti JV v/s DCIT, reported in 39 SOT 498 (Mum) and also by the Special Bench in the case of Braham Associates, reported in 119 ITD 255(Pune SB), wherein the coordinate Benches have held that for the projects approved prior to 01/04/2005, old law shall apply. 10. Respectfully, following the decisions, we dismiss the appeal filed by the department, as the flats whose measurements were taken to be exceeding 1000 sq. ft. included the balcony, which had to be excluded for the measure…

RAMPRASAD AGARWAL,MUMBAI vs. ITO CEN THANE, THANE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and both the cross appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 866/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2008-2009

For Appellant: Shri. Virag H. ShahFor Respondent: Shri. B.S. Bist
Section 143(2)Section 80I

…with by the Co-ordinate Bench at Mumbai in the case of Saroj Sales Organisation v/s ITO reported in 115 TTJ 485 (Mumbai), Hiranandani Akruti JV v/s DCIT, reported in 39 SOT 498 (Mum) and also by the Special Bench in the case of Braham Associates, reported in 119 ITD 255(Pune SB), wherein the coordinate Benches have held that for the projects approved prior to 01/04/2005, old law shall apply. 10. Respectfully, following the decisions, we dismiss the appeal filed by the department, as the flats whose measurements were taken to be exceeding 1000 sq. ft. included the balcony, which had to be excluded for the measure…

ITO WD 2(2), THANE vs. RAMPRASAD AGARWAL, THANE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and both the cross appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1773/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2008-2009

For Appellant: Shri. Virag H. ShahFor Respondent: Shri. B.S. Bist
Section 143(2)Section 80I

…with by the Co-ordinate Bench at Mumbai in the case of Saroj Sales Organisation v/s ITO reported in 115 TTJ 485 (Mumbai), Hiranandani Akruti JV v/s DCIT, reported in 39 SOT 498 (Mum) and also by the Special Bench in the case of Braham Associates, reported in 119 ITD 255(Pune SB), wherein the coordinate Benches have held that for the projects approved prior to 01/04/2005, old law shall apply. 10. Respectfully, following the decisions, we dismiss the appeal filed by the department, as the flats whose measurements were taken to be exceeding 1000 sq. ft. included the balcony, which had to be excluded for the measure…

ITO CEN ( THANE), THANE vs. RAMPRASAD AGARWAL, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and both the cross appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1108/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2008-2009

For Appellant: Shri. Virag H. ShahFor Respondent: Shri. B.S. Bist
Section 143(2)Section 80I

…with by the Co-ordinate Bench at Mumbai in the case of Saroj Sales Organisation v/s ITO reported in 115 TTJ 485 (Mumbai), Hiranandani Akruti JV v/s DCIT, reported in 39 SOT 498 (Mum) and also by the Special Bench in the case of Braham Associates, reported in 119 ITD 255(Pune SB), wherein the coordinate Benches have held that for the projects approved prior to 01/04/2005, old law shall apply. 10. Respectfully, following the decisions, we dismiss the appeal filed by the department, as the flats whose measurements were taken to be exceeding 1000 sq. ft. included the balcony, which had to be excluded for the measure…

NEELKANTH PALM REALTY,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 15(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7900/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

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

Section 143(3)Section 80I

…g built-up area below 1000 sq.ft. The issue has been decided by the Mumbai bench of the Tribunal in the case of G.V. Corporation Vs. ITO, 38 SOT 174(Mum), wherein it was held that in view of the decision of ITAT Special Bench in the case of Brahma Associates, 119 ITD 255, assessee is eligible for proportionate deduction in respect of profits from eligible housing projects. 8. Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Viswas Promoters (P) Ltd., 255 CTR 149, held that within the composite housing project, where there 5 M/s Neelkanth Palm Realty are eligible and ineligible units, the assessee can claim deduction i…

Showing 1–20 of 27 · Page 1 of 2

Brahma Associates v. JCIT (119 ITD 255) — Cited in 27 Judgments | BharatTax