Brahma Associates v. JCIT

119 ITD 255Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2009#4408 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 366,459 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

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Tulip Infratech Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the Revenue’s Appeals are dismissed

ITA 5045/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Aggarwal, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Amit Mohan, CIT(DR)
Section 10ISection 80I

…ingly, the ground no. 1 and 2 raised by the Revenue stand dismissed. 9. As regards ground no. 3 Ld. Counsel of the assessee stated that similar issue involved in ground no. 3 has already been adjudicated and decided by the ITAT Special Bench, Pune reported in 119 ITD 255 in the case of Brahma Associates vs. JCIT. Ld. Counsel of the assessee to support the impugned order involved in ground no. 3 is also relied upon ITA NOS. 2325/Del/2010 & 5045/Del/2012 9 the various case laws mentioned in the CIT(A)’s order in para no. 18.2 at page. 9. 9.1 Ld. DR relied upon the order passed by the AO. 10. After hearing both the…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Tulip Infratech Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the Revenue’s Appeals are dismissed

ITA 2325/DEL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Aggarwal, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Amit Mohan, CIT(DR)
Section 10ISection 80I

…ingly, the ground no. 1 and 2 raised by the Revenue stand dismissed. 9. As regards ground no. 3 Ld. Counsel of the assessee stated that similar issue involved in ground no. 3 has already been adjudicated and decided by the ITAT Special Bench, Pune reported in 119 ITD 255 in the case of Brahma Associates vs. JCIT. Ld. Counsel of the assessee to support the impugned order involved in ground no. 3 is also relied upon ITA NOS. 2325/Del/2010 & 5045/Del/2012 9 the various case laws mentioned in the CIT(A)’s order in para no. 18.2 at page. 9. 9.1 Ld. DR relied upon the order passed by the AO. 10. After hearing both the…

ITO 19(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Sagar Shopping Developers, Mumbai

ITA 5731/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2016AY 2008-09
For Respondent: Sh.B.S.N. Raju (DR)
Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 80I

…lopers-5731/11 the project in August 2003, that the provision of clause (d) to section 80IB(10) of the Act had no application. The FAA referred to the orders of Saroj Sales Organisation (3 DTR 494), Pathare and Associates (ITA/993/Mum/2009, Brahma Associates, 30 SOT 155 held that the assessee was entitled to claim the deduction u/s. 80IB(10) of the Act. 3.During the course of hearing before us, the Departmental Representative (DR) relied upon the order of the AO. The Authorised Representative (AR) relied upon the cases of Veena Developers (377 ITR 297), Brahma Associates (333 ITR 289), Happy Home Enterprises (372…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Omaxe Buildhome (P) Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5373/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu Assessment Year : 2008-09 Deputy Cit, Vs. M/S. Omaxe Ltd., Central Circle-4, 7-Lsc, Omaxe House, New Delhi. Kalkaji, New Delhi. (Pan: Aaaco0171H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Omaxe Ltd., Vs. Deputy Cit, 7-Lsc, Omaxe House, Central Circle-4, Kalkaji, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aaaco0171H) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.L. Meena, CIT(DR)
Section 10ISection 4Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH “E” NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI I.C. SUDHIR AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU Assessment year : 2008-09 Deputy CIT, vs. M/s. Omaxe Ltd., Central Circle-4, 7-LSC, Omaxe House, New Delhi. Kalkaji, New Delhi. (PAN: AAACO0171H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/s. Omaxe Ltd., Vs. Deputy CIT, 7-LSC, Omaxe House, Central Circle-4, Kalkaji, New Delhi. New Delhi. (PAN: AAACO0171H) (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA Nos. 5373, 4031 &4032 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 Deputy CIT, vs. M/s. Omaxe Buildhome (P) Ltd., Central Circle-4, 10-LSC, Omaxe Hous…

ITO WD 23(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Abhilasha Combines, Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4965/MUM/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2015AY 2004-05
For Appellant: Shri Reepal G. TralshawalaFor Respondent: Shri Sujit Bangar
Section 143Section 254(1)Section 80I

…आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, मुंबई अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई ए खंडपीठ मुंबई खंडपीठ खंडपीठ खंडपीठ The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“A”Bench Mumbai "ी "ी राजे"" राजे"",लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं "ीमती "ीमती बीना बीना िप"लई िप"लई, "याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य "ी "ी राजे"" राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं "ीमती "ीमती बीना बीना िप"लई िप"लई "याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य Before Shri Rajendra,Accountant Member and Ms. Beena Pillai,Judicial Member आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं /ITA No.4965//Mum/2012, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year 2004-05) आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष…

M/S Mandovi Builders vs. DCIT

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year

ITA 1786/BANG/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Feb 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Abraham P George

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.K.Shankar Prasad, JCIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 80

…fter 1/4/2010. 7. As regards the assessee’s claim that it is entitled to 100% deduction u/s 80-IB(10), we find that the issue is now settled by the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Brahma Associates vs. Joint CIT reported in (2009) 119 ITD 255 wherein it has been held that the assessee shall be eligible for deduction u/s 80-IB(10) insofar as there is compliance with the conditions of sec.80-IB(10) of the Act. Therefore, we confirm the finding of the CIT(A) that proportionate disallowance is to be made in respect of the transactions which have been made subsequent to the introduction of…

DCIT vs. M/S Mandovi Builders

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year

ITA 1734/BANG/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Feb 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Abraham P George

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.K.Shankar Prasad, JCIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 80

…fter 1/4/2010. 7. As regards the assessee’s claim that it is entitled to 100% deduction u/s 80-IB(10), we find that the issue is now settled by the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Brahma Associates vs. Joint CIT reported in (2009) 119 ITD 255 wherein it has been held that the assessee shall be eligible for deduction u/s 80-IB(10) insofar as there is compliance with the conditions of sec.80-IB(10) of the Act. Therefore, we confirm the finding of the CIT(A) that proportionate disallowance is to be made in respect of the transactions which have been made subsequent to the introduction of…