CIT v. Aditya Builders

378 ITR 75High Court2015#5581 most cited

What is CIT v. Aditya Builders authority for?

The appropriate method of accounting to correctly reflect a true financial statement is a matter of opinion and debate, which is not amenable to revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act. The Assessing Officer cannot change the method of revenue recognition to the percentage completion method if the assessee has consistently followed the project completion method.

21

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Aditya Builders · CIT v Aditya Builders · 378 ITR 75 · section 263 · revisional jurisdiction · accounting method · project completion method · percentage completion method · revenue recognition · AO jurisdiction

Also reported as

158 Taxmann 61

Issues it is cited on

section 145(1)section 2(7)section 132(2)section 132(1)(a)section 153(a)(1)section 250(1)section 45(2)project completion methodsection 211percentage completion methodsection 145(2)jda

Judgments citing CIT v. Aditya Builders

Surbhit Impex Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -8, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2570/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri K. Shivaram Sr. Adv.& Shri Shashi Bekkal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, (CIT-DR)
Section 147Section 263Section 41(1)

…his regard is placed on the decision of the hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT V. Nagri Mills Co. Ltd. [1958] 33 ITR 681 (Bom)(HC).It is also sub mitted that the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Aditya Builders [[2015] 378 ITR 75 (Bom)(HC) where the assessee had paid the taxes under a different method of accounting, it was held that the most appropriate method of accounting to correctly reflect a true financial statement is a matter of opinion and debate, which is not amenable to revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act. Hence, it is prayed that the assessee ha…

Asstt.Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5, Nagpur vs. The Nirmal Ujwal Credit Co-Op Society Ltd, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for the assessment year

ITA 390/NAG/2019[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Nagpur27 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Vikash Agrawal
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 80PSection 80P(2)

…g./2015, for A.Y. 2010–11 & 2011–12, order dated 31/05/2016 (Nag. Trib.); vii) Citizen Co–operative Society Ltd. v/s ACIT, Civil Appeal no.10245 of 2017 (arising out of SLP(C) no.20044 of 2015), judgment dated 08/08/2017; viii) CIT v/s Aditya Builders, [2015] 378 ITR 75 (Bom. HC); and ix) M/s. Corporation Leisure & Property Development Pvt. Ltd. v/s DCIT, ITA no.1006/Bang./2022, order dated 27/01/2023 (Bang. Trib.). 11. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments made by the learned Departmental Representative and perused the material available on record. During the course of hearing the learned Dep…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-1(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Kumar Properties Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue as well as Cross

ITA 3248/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassistant Commissioner Of Vs. Kumar Properties Private Income Tax – 1(2)(1) Limited, 21, Woudboy Room No. 535, 5 Th Floor, Road, Hazarimal Somani Aayakar Bhawan, New Marg, Opp. Mumbai Marine Line, M.K. Road, Gymkhana, Fort – Mumbai- 400020 400001 Maharashtra – 400001 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aabck8464E Appellant .. Respondent C.O. No.13/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2016-17)

For Appellant: Rajan Vora a/wFor Respondent: P.D. Chougule
Section 143(2)Section 145(1)

…he proposition that assessing officer cannot change the method of revenue recognition to percentage completion method where the assessee has been constantly following the project completion method for recognition of revenue: 1. CIT Vs. Aditya Builders (2017) 378 ITR 75 (Bom HC) 2. CIT vs. Manish Build Well Pvt Lid Vs. CIT (2011) 245 CTR 397 (Del) 3. CIT Vs Hill View Infrastructure (P) Ltd (2013) 81 taxmanın.com 58 (P&H HC) 4. PCIT vs Salarpuria Simplex Dwelling LLP (2022) 455 ITR 712 (Cal HC) 5. Rema Country Holdings Ltd. [2012] 18 taxmann.com 184 (Karnataka HC) 6. Corporate Leisure & Property Development Privat…

M/S Parth Developers, Dhar vs. The PCIT -1, Indorer

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 419/IND/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Parth Developers Pr. Cit-1 Manawar Dist. Indore Vs. Dhar (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aalfp 4509 N Assessee By Shri Milind Wadhwani, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 22.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28.07.2023

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43C

…AT, Bom). Ld. AR has further submitted that the deferment of tax as result of method is regularly and consistently employed by the assesse is not viewed adversely by Hon’ble Bombay High Court as well as Hon’ble Supreme court in case of CIT vs. Aditya Builders 378 ITR 75 (Bom) and in case of Excel Industreis Ltd. 358 ITR 295(SC). Even otherwise the Page 3 of 24 Parth Developers Page 4 of 24 appropriate accounting method is a matter method of opinion and debate not amenable to revisional jurisdictional u/s 263 as held by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Aditya Builders (supra). 6. The Ld. AR has v…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sahara India Power Corporation Ltd., Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue for the AY 2005-06 in I

ITA 5067/DEL/2013[2005-06]Status: PendingITAT Delhi28 Apr 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Ajay VohraFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali

…o reject the method which has been consistently followed by the Assessee merely because the learned assessing officer is of the opinion that another method is preferable. The following judgments support the case of Assessee: i ) CIT v. Aditya Builders (2015) 378 ITR 75 (Born.) wherein held that “Assessee had chosen/adopted the Project completion method of accounting and had been consistently following it over the years. It was not open to the revenue to reject a method because, according to the Assessing Officer, another method was preferable. Moreover, the most appropriate method of accounting to correctly refl…

Sahara India Power Corporation Ltd, Pune vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue for the AY 2005-06 in I

ITA 1155/DEL/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Ajay VohraFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali

…o reject the method which has been consistently followed by the Assessee merely because the learned assessing officer is of the opinion that another method is preferable. The following judgments support the case of Assessee: i ) CIT v. Aditya Builders (2015) 378 ITR 75 (Born.) wherein held that “Assessee had chosen/adopted the Project completion method of accounting and had been consistently following it over the years. It was not open to the revenue to reject a method because, according to the Assessing Officer, another method was preferable. Moreover, the most appropriate method of accounting to correctly refl…

Sahara India Power Corporation Ltd., Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue for the AY 2005-06 in I

ITA 109/PUN/2007[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2023AY 2003-04

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Ajay VohraFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali

…o reject the method which has been consistently followed by the Assessee merely because the learned assessing officer is of the opinion that another method is preferable. The following judgments support the case of Assessee: i ) CIT v. Aditya Builders (2015) 378 ITR 75 (Born.) wherein held that “Assessee had chosen/adopted the Project completion method of accounting and had been consistently following it over the years. It was not open to the revenue to reject a method because, according to the Assessing Officer, another method was preferable. Moreover, the most appropriate method of accounting to correctly refl…

M/S. Corporate Leisure & Property Development Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed

ITA 1053/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Prashanth G.S., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankarganesh K., D.R

…reject the method which has been consistently followed by the Assessee merely because the learned assessing officer is of the opinion that another method is preferable. The following judgements support the case of Assessee: i ) CIT v. Aditya Builders (2015) 378 ITR 75 (Born.) wherein held that “Assessee had chosen/adopted the Project completion method of accounting and had been consistently following it over the years. It was not open to the revenue to reject a method because, according to the Assessing Officer, another method was preferable. Moreover, the most appropriate method of accounting to correctly refl…

M/S. Trishul Buildtech & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 109/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 250

…s CIT (2016) 382 ITR 0630 (Delhi) • CIT V. Manish Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (2011) 245 CTR 0397 (Del) • CIT vs. Shivalik Buildwell (P.) Ltd. - 40 taxmann.com 219(Gujarat) • ITA No. 853 of 2015(Bom) CIT vs. Millennium Estates Private Ltd. • CIT vs. Aditya Builders - 378 ITR 75(Bom) • Bakshi Vikram Vikas Construction Co. P. Ltd. V. DCIT - 158 Taxman 61 (Del.) • CIT v. V. S. Dempo & Co. Pvt. Ltd. (131 CTR 203)(Bom) • ACIT v. Rajesh Builders (2004-TIOL-88-ITAT-MUM) • Maitri Developers v. ITO (2011-TIOL-472-ITAT-Mum) 16.19 As seen from the various judgements, jurisdictional High Court time and again held that method of acc…

M/S. Trishul Buildtech & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 108/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 250

…s CIT (2016) 382 ITR 0630 (Delhi) • CIT V. Manish Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (2011) 245 CTR 0397 (Del) • CIT vs. Shivalik Buildwell (P.) Ltd. - 40 taxmann.com 219(Gujarat) • ITA No. 853 of 2015(Bom) CIT vs. Millennium Estates Private Ltd. • CIT vs. Aditya Builders - 378 ITR 75(Bom) • Bakshi Vikram Vikas Construction Co. P. Ltd. V. DCIT - 158 Taxman 61 (Del.) • CIT v. V. S. Dempo & Co. Pvt. Ltd. (131 CTR 203)(Bom) • ACIT v. Rajesh Builders (2004-TIOL-88-ITAT-MUM) • Maitri Developers v. ITO (2011-TIOL-472-ITAT-Mum) 16.19 As seen from the various judgements, jurisdictional High Court time and again held that method of acc…

M/S. Trishul Buildtech & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 107/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 250

…s CIT (2016) 382 ITR 0630 (Delhi) • CIT V. Manish Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (2011) 245 CTR 0397 (Del) • CIT vs. Shivalik Buildwell (P.) Ltd. - 40 taxmann.com 219(Gujarat) • ITA No. 853 of 2015(Bom) CIT vs. Millennium Estates Private Ltd. • CIT vs. Aditya Builders - 378 ITR 75(Bom) • Bakshi Vikram Vikas Construction Co. P. Ltd. V. DCIT - 158 Taxman 61 (Del.) • CIT v. V. S. Dempo & Co. Pvt. Ltd. (131 CTR 203)(Bom) • ACIT v. Rajesh Builders (2004-TIOL-88-ITAT-MUM) • Maitri Developers v. ITO (2011-TIOL-472-ITAT-Mum) 16.19 As seen from the various judgements, jurisdictional High Court time and again held that method of acc…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circel-2(1), Bangalore vs. Sri Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 544/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Nagin Khincha &For Respondent: Shri M. Mathivanan, D.R
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 45(2)

…s CIT (2016) 382 ITR 0630 (Delhi) • CIT V. Manish Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (2011) 245 CTR 0397 (Del) • CIT vs. Shivalik Buildwell (P.) Ltd. - 40 taxmann.com 219(Gujarat) • ITA No. 853 of 2015(Bom) CIT vs. Millennium Estates Private Ltd. • CIT vs. Aditya Builders - 378 ITR 75(Bom) • Bakshi Vikram Vikas Construction Co. P. Ltd. V. DCIT - 158 Taxman 61 (Del.) • CIT v. V. S. Dempo & Co. Pvt. Ltd. (131 CTR 203)(Bom) • ACIT v. Rajesh Builders (2004-TIOL-88-ITAT-MUM) • Maitri Developers v. ITO (2011-TIOL-472-ITAT-Mum) 8.23 It is pertinent to mention here that recently the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Var…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circel-2(1), Bangalore vs. Sri Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 543/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Nagin Khincha &For Respondent: Shri M. Mathivanan, D.R
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 45(2)

…s CIT (2016) 382 ITR 0630 (Delhi) • CIT V. Manish Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (2011) 245 CTR 0397 (Del) • CIT vs. Shivalik Buildwell (P.) Ltd. - 40 taxmann.com 219(Gujarat) • ITA No. 853 of 2015(Bom) CIT vs. Millennium Estates Private Ltd. • CIT vs. Aditya Builders - 378 ITR 75(Bom) • Bakshi Vikram Vikas Construction Co. P. Ltd. V. DCIT - 158 Taxman 61 (Del.) • CIT v. V. S. Dempo & Co. Pvt. Ltd. (131 CTR 203)(Bom) • ACIT v. Rajesh Builders (2004-TIOL-88-ITAT-MUM) • Maitri Developers v. ITO (2011-TIOL-472-ITAT-Mum) 8.23 It is pertinent to mention here that recently the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Var…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circel-2(1), Bangalore vs. Sri Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 542/BANG/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Nagin Khincha &For Respondent: Shri M. Mathivanan, D.R
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 45(2)

…s CIT (2016) 382 ITR 0630 (Delhi) • CIT V. Manish Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (2011) 245 CTR 0397 (Del) • CIT vs. Shivalik Buildwell (P.) Ltd. - 40 taxmann.com 219(Gujarat) • ITA No. 853 of 2015(Bom) CIT vs. Millennium Estates Private Ltd. • CIT vs. Aditya Builders - 378 ITR 75(Bom) • Bakshi Vikram Vikas Construction Co. P. Ltd. V. DCIT - 158 Taxman 61 (Del.) • CIT v. V. S. Dempo & Co. Pvt. Ltd. (131 CTR 203)(Bom) • ACIT v. Rajesh Builders (2004-TIOL-88-ITAT-MUM) • Maitri Developers v. ITO (2011-TIOL-472-ITAT-Mum) 8.23 It is pertinent to mention here that recently the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Var…

DCIT-1(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Kumar Properties Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, and appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed

ITA 605/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 605/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Dcit 1(2)(1), M/S Kumar Properties Pvt. R. No. 535, Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakarbhavan, 21, Woundboy Road, M. K. Road, Hazarimalsomani Marg, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Opp-Mumbai Gymkhana, Fort, Mubmai-400 001 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aabck8464E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : &

For Appellant: ShriDrop Singh MeenaFor Respondent: ShriRajanVora/Shri
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 145(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 605/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) DCIT 1(2)(1), M/s Kumar Properties Pvt. R. No. 535, Ltd. बिधम/ AayakarBhavan, 21, Woundboy Road, M. K. Road, HazarimalSomani Marg, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Opp-Mumbai Gymkhana, Fort, Mubmai-400 001 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN No. AABCK8464E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & C.O. No. 14/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/s Kumar Properties Pvt. DCIT 1(2)(1), Ltd. R. No. 535, बिधम/ 21, Woundboy Road,…

Nanji D. Patel, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(3)(3), Mumbai

ITA 5519/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. Shamim Yahya, Am& Hon’Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5519/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Hiro Rai, ARFor Respondent: Shri AarjuGarodia, DR
Section 145(3)

…nt years adopting the Project Completion Method consistently. 7. We have also considered the judgments in the case of CIT Vrs. Bilahri Investment (P) Ltd (2008) 299 ITR 1 (SC), CIT Vrs. Millenium States Pvt. Ltd. ITXA No. 853 of 2015, CIT Vrs. Aditya Builders 378 ITR 75(Bom), Paras Buildtech India Pvt. Ltd. 382 ITR 360 (Del), HawareConsturction Pvt. Ltd. Vrs. ITO 64 DTR 251 Mum-Trib and Bhoomi Construction Projects Vrs. ACIT 44 CCH 129 Mum-Trib. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs Bilahari Investment (P) Ltd (2008) 299 ITR 1 (SC) held that "recognition/identification of income under the 1961 act is attainable…

The Asst. CIT, Guntur vs. Sri Grandhi Subba Rao, Guntur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the

ITA 239/VIZ/2017[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam16 Mar 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.S. Murthy, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 41(1)

…ax liability in respect of refund of excise duty is marginal whether it is assessment for the assessment year 2011-12 or 2013-14. The assessee also relied on the decisions of CIT Vs. Triveni Engineering Industries Ltd. 336 ITR 374, CIT Vs. Aditya Builders 378 ITR 75 (Bom) and CIT Vs. Excel Industries (2013) 358 ITR 285 (SC). 7. On the other hand, the Ld. D.R. relied on the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax passed u/s 263 of the Act and argued that the Commissioner of Income Tax has rightly directed the A.O. to tax the Central excise refund and there is no mistake in the order of the ITA No.223/Vizag/…

Grandhi Subbarao, Guntur vs. The Addl. CIT, Guntur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the

ITA 223/VIZ/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam16 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.S. Murthy, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 41(1)

…ax liability in respect of refund of excise duty is marginal whether it is assessment for the assessment year 2011-12 or 2013-14. The assessee also relied on the decisions of CIT Vs. Triveni Engineering Industries Ltd. 336 ITR 374, CIT Vs. Aditya Builders 378 ITR 75 (Bom) and CIT Vs. Excel Industries (2013) 358 ITR 285 (SC). 7. On the other hand, the Ld. D.R. relied on the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax passed u/s 263 of the Act and argued that the Commissioner of Income Tax has rightly directed the A.O. to tax the Central excise refund and there is no mistake in the order of the ITA No.223/Vizag/…

Ashish Builders Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. D.C.I.T. Range 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, order of the CIT(Appeals) does not call for interference

ITA 1566/MUM/2011[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2016AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Toprani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri A.B. Koli, D.R

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/s. Ashish Builders Pvt. Ltd., Asst. Commissioner of Income 6th Floor, Agarwal Golden Tax, Range 9(1)/3(1), Chamber, Mumbai Plot No.13/A, Fun Republic Vs. Road, Off New Link Road, Andheri – West Mumbai – 400 053 PAN: AAACA 5024F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dy/Asst. Commissioner of M/s. Ashish Builders Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, G-1, B-3, Akhil T…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Lease Plan Fleet Management India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4541/DEL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri C.M. Garg & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year : 2007-08 D.C.I.T., Circle 4(1), Vs. Lease Plan Fleet Management India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. 301, Ca Chambers, 2183-84/62, Naiwala, Gurudwara Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. [Pan: Aaacl 4751A] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Ms. Anima Baranwal, Sr. Dr Respondent By : Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate & Sh. Aditya Vohra, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 06.06.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.06.2016 Order Per L.P. Sahu: This Is An Appeal By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-Vii, New Delhi Dated 25.08.2010 For The Assessment Year 2007-08 On The Following Grounds : “1. The Order Of The Learned It(A) Is Erroneous & Contrary To Facts & Law. 2. On The Fact & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(Appeals) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.3,00,88,607/- Made By The Ao By Disallowing The Provisions Directly Debited In The Balance Sheet.

For Appellant: Ms. Anima Baranwal, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate &
Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH ‘D’ NEW DELHI BEFORE : SHRI C.M. GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Asstt. Year : 2007-08 D.C.I.T., Circle 4(1), vs. Lease Plan Fleet Management India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. 301, CA Chambers, 2183-84/62, Naiwala, Gurudwara Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. [PAN: AAACL 4751A] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Ms. Anima Baranwal, Sr. DR Respondent by : Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate & Sh. Aditya Vohra, Advocate Date of hearing : 06.06.2016 Date of pronouncement : 28.06.2016 ORDER Per L.P. Sahu, Accountant Member: This is an appeal by the Reven…

CIT v. Aditya Builders (378 ITR 75) — Cited in 21 Judgments | BharatTax