Bunty Builders v. ITO

127 ITD 286Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2010#8911 most cited
12

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2018.

Also reported as

46 SOT 27

Judgments citing Bunty Builders v. ITO

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. M/S. SAI SIDDHI ATUL ENTERPRISES,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2420/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Prasad
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vandana Properties reported as 353 ITR 36 and the order of Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Bunty Builders Vs. Income Tax Officer reported as 127 ITD 286 held that the area ear marked for DP road has to be included for computing the entire size of the plot. If the area of DP road is included the size of plot is more than one acre. Hence, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) allowed assessee’s claim of deduction u/s. 80IB(10) negating both the objections raised by the Assessing Officer. Now, th…

M/S. TULSI DEVELOPERS,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 484/PUN/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Apr 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.484/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Aggarwal
Section 254Section 80I

…has to be seen which was more than one acre and hence, the assessee was entitled to 80IB(10) deduction. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that the issue stands covered by the order of Tribunal in Bunty Builders Vs. ITO (2010) 127 ITD 286 (Pune). 7. The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue laid emphasis on the findings of CIT(A) at page 13 of the appellate order and pointed out that the area on which the building was constructed was less than one acre and hence, 80IB(10) deduction is not to be allowed to the assessee. 4 M/s. Tulsi Developers 8. On perusal of recor…

KASHISH PARK REALTORS,THANE vs. ITO WD 1(3), THANE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed whereas appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4927/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm M/S. Kashish Park Realtors Vs. Ito, Ward – 1(3),Thane Fgp Complex, Kashish Park Room No.10, ‘B’Wing, 6Th Floor, Ashar I.T. Park Lbs Marg, Near Mulund Check Naka Road No.16Z, Thane (W) - 400604 Wagale Indl. Estate, Thane (W) – 400 604 Pan/Gir No. Aagfk2620J Appellant) Respondent) .. Ito, Ward – 1(3),Thane Vs. M/S. Kashish Park Realtors Room No.10, ‘B’Wing, Fgp Complex, Kashish Park 6Th Floor, Ashar I.T. Park Lbs Marg, Road No.16Z, Near Mulund Check Naka Wagale Indl. Estate, Thane (W) - 400604 Thane (W) – 400 604 Pan/Gir No. Aagfk2620J Appellant) Respondent) .. Assessee By Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi Revenue By Shri M.C.Omi Ningshen

Section 143(3)Section 80I

…ing, learned representative for the assessee pointed out that even such conclusion of the Assessing Officer is factually untenable, in as much as similar issue has come up before the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Bunty Builders vs. ITO reported at 127 ITD 286. In the said decision, it has been explained that one acre would mean 4046 sq.mtrs or 43,560 sq.ft. Reliance has also been placed on the decision of Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Baba Promoters and Development vs. ITO 25 Taxmann.com 84 (Pune) wherein also it has been accepted that one acre would mean 4046 mtrs or 43,560 sq.ft. Conside…

ITO WD 1(3), THANE vs. KASHISH PARK REALTORS, THANE

Appeal of the assessee is allowed whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6172/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S.Kashish Park Realtors Fgp Complex, Kashish Park, Lbs Marg Near Mulund Check Naka Thane (W) – 400 604 Pan: Aagfk2620J ...... Appellant

For Respondent: Shri Nikhil S. Pathak
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…ing, learned representative for the assessee pointed out that even such conclusion of the Assessing Officer is factually untenable, in as much as similar issue has come up before the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Bunty Builders vs. ITO reported at 127 ITD 286. In the said decision, it has been explained that one acre would mean 4046 sq.mtrs or 43,560 sq.ft. Reliance has also been placed on the decision of Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Baba Promoters and Development vs. ITO 25 Taxmann.com 84 (Pune) wherein also it has been accepted that one acre would mean 4046 mtrs or 43,560 sq.ft. Conside…

KASHISH PARK REALTORS,THANE vs. ITO WD 1(3), THANE

Appeal of the assessee is allowed whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5777/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S.Kashish Park Realtors Fgp Complex, Kashish Park, Lbs Marg Near Mulund Check Naka Thane (W) – 400 604 Pan: Aagfk2620J ...... Appellant

For Respondent: Shri Nikhil S. Pathak
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…ing, learned representative for the assessee pointed out that even such conclusion of the Assessing Officer is factually untenable, in as much as similar issue has come up before the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Bunty Builders vs. ITO reported at 127 ITD 286. In the said decision, it has been explained that one acre would mean 4046 sq.mtrs or 43,560 sq.ft. Reliance has also been placed on the decision of Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Baba Promoters and Development vs. ITO 25 Taxmann.com 84 (Pune) wherein also it has been accepted that one acre would mean 4046 mtrs or 43,560 sq.ft. Conside…

ITO 24(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. KAMALA BROTHERS, MUMBAI

Appeals is dismissed

ITA 925/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble S/Shri Joginder Singh (Jm) & Rajesh Kumar,(Am) आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.108/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10) बनाम/ Kamala Brothers, Income Tax Officer-24(2)(1), C-13, R.No.606, 6Th Fl., Kuber Chambers, Cts 141-A, Vs. Next To Cod, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Dutt Mandir Road, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Malad (E), Bandra (E), Mumbai-400097.. Mumbai-400051. (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Respondent: Shri H M Wanare
Section 143(3)Section 23(1)(a)Section 24

…erein it has been held that where a portion of plot area was earmarked for laying Roads, same should be considered as part of housing project in order to determine the prescribed limit u/s 80IB. Similar view has been taken in the case of Bunty Builders vs ITO 127 ITD 286 (Pune) and Haware Engineers & Builders P. Ltd. v. ACIT 46 SOT 27 (Mum)(URO). Thus, keeping in view the facts, the documentary evidences brought before us, un-assailed factual findings of Ld. CIT(A) and aforesaid judgments placed before us, we find 23 Kamala Brothers that no interference is called for in the order of Ld. CIT(A) and therefore same…

ITO 24(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. KAMALA BROTHERS, MUMBAI

Appeals is dismissed

ITA 5424/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble S/Shri Joginder Singh (Jm) & Rajesh Kumar,(Am) आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.108/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10) बनाम/ Kamala Brothers, Income Tax Officer-24(2)(1), C-13, R.No.606, 6Th Fl., Kuber Chambers, Cts 141-A, Vs. Next To Cod, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Dutt Mandir Road, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Malad (E), Bandra (E), Mumbai-400097.. Mumbai-400051. (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Respondent: Shri H M Wanare
Section 143(3)Section 23(1)(a)Section 24

…erein it has been held that where a portion of plot area was earmarked for laying Roads, same should be considered as part of housing project in order to determine the prescribed limit u/s 80IB. Similar view has been taken in the case of Bunty Builders vs ITO 127 ITD 286 (Pune) and Haware Engineers & Builders P. Ltd. v. ACIT 46 SOT 27 (Mum)(URO). Thus, keeping in view the facts, the documentary evidences brought before us, un-assailed factual findings of Ld. CIT(A) and aforesaid judgments placed before us, we find 23 Kamala Brothers that no interference is called for in the order of Ld. CIT(A) and therefore same…

KAMLA BROTEHRS,MUMBAI vs. ITO RG 24(2)(1), MUMBAI

Appeals is dismissed

ITA 108/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble S/Shri Joginder Singh (Jm) & Rajesh Kumar,(Am) आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.108/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10) बनाम/ Kamala Brothers, Income Tax Officer-24(2)(1), C-13, R.No.606, 6Th Fl., Kuber Chambers, Cts 141-A, Vs. Next To Cod, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Dutt Mandir Road, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Malad (E), Bandra (E), Mumbai-400097.. Mumbai-400051. (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Respondent: Shri H M Wanare
Section 143(3)Section 23(1)(a)Section 24

…erein it has been held that where a portion of plot area was earmarked for laying Roads, same should be considered as part of housing project in order to determine the prescribed limit u/s 80IB. Similar view has been taken in the case of Bunty Builders vs ITO 127 ITD 286 (Pune) and Haware Engineers & Builders P. Ltd. v. ACIT 46 SOT 27 (Mum)(URO). Thus, keeping in view the facts, the documentary evidences brought before us, un-assailed factual findings of Ld. CIT(A) and aforesaid judgments placed before us, we find 23 Kamala Brothers that no interference is called for in the order of Ld. CIT(A) and therefore same…

KAMALA BROTHERS,MUMBAI vs. ITO 24(2)1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, and assessee’s appeal as well as and CO filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1160/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2003-04 Kamala Brothers, Ito 24(2)(1) Kuber Chamber, Cts बनाम/ C-13 Bandra Kurla 141-A, Next To Cod, Complex, Bandra(E) Vs. Dutt Mandir Road, Mumbai Malad (E) Mumbai -400097 (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aaafk0111D Assessment Year: 2003-04 Ito 24(2)(1) Kamala Brothers, C-13 Bandra Kurla Kuber Chamber, Cts 141- बनाम/ Complex, Bandra(E) A, Next To Cod, Dutt Vs. Mumbai Mandir Road, Malad (E) Mumbai -400097 (Revenue) (Respondent) P.A. No. Aaafk0111D C.O. No.180/Mum/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1334/Mum/2011) Assessment Year: 2003-04

Section 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 50C

…erein it has been held that where a portion of plot area was earmarked for laying Roads, same should be considered as part of housing project in order to determine the prescribed limit u/s 80IB. Similar view has been taken in the case of Bunty Builders vs ITO 127 ITD 286 (Pune) and Haware Engineers & Builders P. Ltd. v. ACIT 46 SOT 27 (Mum)(URO). Thus, keeping in view the facts, the documentary evidences brought before us, un-assailed factual findings of Ld. CIT(A) and aforesaid judgments placed before us, we find 23 Kamala Brothers that no interference is called for in the order of Ld. CIT(A) and therefore sam…

KAMALA BROTHERS,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 24(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, and assessee’s appeal as well as and CO filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1140/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2003-04 Kamala Brothers, Ito 24(2)(1) Kuber Chamber, Cts बनाम/ C-13 Bandra Kurla 141-A, Next To Cod, Complex, Bandra(E) Vs. Dutt Mandir Road, Mumbai Malad (E) Mumbai -400097 (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aaafk0111D Assessment Year: 2003-04 Ito 24(2)(1) Kamala Brothers, C-13 Bandra Kurla Kuber Chamber, Cts 141- बनाम/ Complex, Bandra(E) A, Next To Cod, Dutt Vs. Mumbai Mandir Road, Malad (E) Mumbai -400097 (Revenue) (Respondent) P.A. No. Aaafk0111D C.O. No.180/Mum/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1334/Mum/2011) Assessment Year: 2003-04

Section 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 50C

…erein it has been held that where a portion of plot area was earmarked for laying Roads, same should be considered as part of housing project in order to determine the prescribed limit u/s 80IB. Similar view has been taken in the case of Bunty Builders vs ITO 127 ITD 286 (Pune) and Haware Engineers & Builders P. Ltd. v. ACIT 46 SOT 27 (Mum)(URO). Thus, keeping in view the facts, the documentary evidences brought before us, un-assailed factual findings of Ld. CIT(A) and aforesaid judgments placed before us, we find 23 Kamala Brothers that no interference is called for in the order of Ld. CIT(A) and therefore sam…

KAMALA BROTHERS,MUMBAI vs. ITO 24(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, and assessee’s appeal as well as and CO filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1139/MUM/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2003-04 Kamala Brothers, Ito 24(2)(1) Kuber Chamber, Cts बनाम/ C-13 Bandra Kurla 141-A, Next To Cod, Complex, Bandra(E) Vs. Dutt Mandir Road, Mumbai Malad (E) Mumbai -400097 (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aaafk0111D Assessment Year: 2003-04 Ito 24(2)(1) Kamala Brothers, C-13 Bandra Kurla Kuber Chamber, Cts 141- बनाम/ Complex, Bandra(E) A, Next To Cod, Dutt Vs. Mumbai Mandir Road, Malad (E) Mumbai -400097 (Revenue) (Respondent) P.A. No. Aaafk0111D C.O. No.180/Mum/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1334/Mum/2011) Assessment Year: 2003-04

Section 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 50C

…erein it has been held that where a portion of plot area was earmarked for laying Roads, same should be considered as part of housing project in order to determine the prescribed limit u/s 80IB. Similar view has been taken in the case of Bunty Builders vs ITO 127 ITD 286 (Pune) and Haware Engineers & Builders P. Ltd. v. ACIT 46 SOT 27 (Mum)(URO). Thus, keeping in view the facts, the documentary evidences brought before us, un-assailed factual findings of Ld. CIT(A) and aforesaid judgments placed before us, we find 23 Kamala Brothers that no interference is called for in the order of Ld. CIT(A) and therefore sam…

ITO WD 1(2), KALYAN vs. KANTILAL DHANRAJ JAIN (HUF), BHIWANDI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2743/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2743/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Income Tax Officer, Kantilal Dhanraj Jain (Huf) बनाम/ Ward 1(2), Kalyan, 1St Floor, H. No. 64/2, 1St Floor, Mohan Plaza, Wayale Nagar, Malani Bhuwan, Prabhu Ali, Vs. Khadakpada, Kalyan Mandai, Bhiwandi – 421 302 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabhj 8351 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri B. S. Bist ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Sejal Lalit Jain सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 16.11.2015 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 27.11.2015 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Revenue Arising Out Of The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Thane (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 16.01.2014, Partly Allowing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting Its Assessment U/S.143(3) R/W S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2006-07 Vide Order Dated 30.12.2010. 2. The Only Issue Arising Per The Instant Appeal Is The Validity Of The Deletion Of The Disallowance Of The Assessee’S, A Huf In The Business Of Property Development, Claim

For Appellant: Shri B. S. BistFor Respondent: Ms. Sejal Lalit Jain
Section 143(3)Section 80

…taxmann.com 316 (Mum)), clarified that the area of the plot is to be worked out for the entire housing project, i.e., as approved, and not with reference to any particular building. Further, relying on the decision in the case of Bunty Builders vs. ITO [2010] 127 ITD 286 (Pune), it stands held that the amenity space and the land surrendered for the road is not to be excluded while reckoning the plot area in-as-much as the same forms an integral part of the housing project. As regards the built-up area, the same is to be worked out by not excluding the balcony area, as the project under reference stands approved o…