CIT v. Bilahari Investment (P) Ltd.

299 ITR 1Supreme Court of India2008#439 most cited

What is CIT v. Bilahari Investment (P) Ltd. authority for?

The project completion method and the percentage of completion method are both recognized methods for recognizing income from real estate contracts.

206

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,854 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT vs. Bilahari Investment (P) Ltd. · section 145 · project completion method · percentage completion method · recognized method of accounting · real estate contracts · revenue recognition · accounting methods · taxable income · completed contract method

Also reported as

168 Taxmann 95

Sections most often in play

Section 144BSection 145(3)Section 10(1)Section 148Section 151ASection 143(3)Section 145Section 36(1)(iii)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 145(1)project completion methodpercentage completion methodsection 211section 145(2)section 43cjdaprincipal officericdsmercantile system of accountingsection 21right to receive

Judgments citing CIT v. Bilahari Investment (P) Ltd.

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

…e. —CIT vs. Khoday Distilleries Ltd. (ITRC Nos. 19, 20 & 21 of 1993) and H.M. Constructions vs. Jt. CIT (2004) 90 TTJ (Bang) 510 : (2003) 84 ITD 429 (Bang) followed; CIT vs. Bilahari Investment (P) Ltd. (2008) 215 CTR (SC) 201 : (2008) 3 DTR (SC) 329 : (2008) 299 ITR 1 (SC) relied on. (Paras 3.17 to 3.21) In case the revised AS-7 is to be applied then the opening inventories are also to be valued as per revised AS-7 though revised AS-7 is not applicable in the case of the assessee. Also on the principle of consistency, the Revenue should have accepted the method of accounting adopted by the assessee as the same…

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

…e. —CIT vs. Khoday Distilleries Ltd. (ITRC Nos. 19, 20 & 21 of 1993) and H.M. Constructions vs. Jt. CIT (2004) 90 TTJ (Bang) 510 : (2003) 84 ITD 429 (Bang) followed; CIT vs. Bilahari Investment (P) Ltd. (2008) 215 CTR (SC) 201 : (2008) 3 DTR (SC) 329 : (2008) 299 ITR 1 (SC) relied on. (Paras 3.17 to 3.21) In case the revised AS-7 is to be applied then the opening inventories are also to be valued as per revised AS-7 though revised AS-7 is not applicable in the case of the assessee. Also on the principle of consistency, the Revenue should have accepted the method of accounting adopted by the assessee as the same…

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

…e. —CIT vs. Khoday Distilleries Ltd. (ITRC Nos. 19, 20 & 21 of 1993) and H.M. Constructions vs. Jt. CIT (2004) 90 TTJ (Bang) 510 : (2003) 84 ITD 429 (Bang) followed; CIT vs. Bilahari Investment (P) Ltd. (2008) 215 CTR (SC) 201 : (2008) 3 DTR (SC) 329 : (2008) 299 ITR 1 (SC) relied on. (Paras 3.17 to 3.21) In case the revised AS-7 is to be applied then the opening inventories are also to be valued as per revised AS-7 though revised AS-7 is not applicable in the case of the assessee. Also on the principle of consistency, the Revenue should have accepted the method of accounting adopted by the assessee as the same…

Gk Steel & Wire Products, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 46(5), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3530/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Rajat Vaishnawi, Adv
Section 139(1)Section 139(9)

…l year is also adjusted, it will give distorted figure. 3. The assessee relied on the following judgements:- (i) Pr. CIT v. Deccan Mining Syndicate (P.) Ltd. [(2019) 104 taxmann.com 111/262 Taxman 258 (SC)]; (ii) CIT vs Bilahari Investment (P.) Ltd. [(2008) 299 ITR 1 (SC)]; (iii) CIT vs Triveni Engg. & Industries Ltd. [(2011) 336 ITR 374 (Delhi High Court)] (iv) Housing & Urban Development Corporation Ltd. Vs Addl. CIT [([2020] 421 ITR 599 (Delhi High Court) (v) M/s Rasiklal & Sons vs ITO [ITA No. 1974/Mum/2010 – order dated 13.01.2012 (Mum.-Trib.) (vi) Gogga Gurusanthiah & Bros. vs DCIT [(2019) 108 taxmann…

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

…y the assessee. Therefore, the ld. A.R. stated that the addition made by the assessing officer requires to be deleted on the facts of the case. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Bilahari Investment Pvt Ltd reported in 299 ITR 1. 5.8 The ld. A.R. further submitted that the project completion method is also one of the recognized methods of accounting as per which the profit is determined when the project is completed and the said method does not suffer from any infirmity/ defect calling upon for rejection of the same. The said method cannot be rejected merely because there…

ITO 2(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Shree Bal Construction P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4787/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Shree Bal Constructions Pvt. Ltd., V. Acit – Osd – 2(3) Office No. 4, Buona Casa Mumbai 2Nd Floor, Opp. Kashmir Art Emporium Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aabcs1781J (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit – Osd – 2(3) V. M/S. Shree Bal Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 556, 5Th Floor Office No. 4, Buona Casa Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 2Nd Floor, Opp. Kashmir Art Emporium Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aabcs1781J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 154Section 271(1)(c)

…d circumstances your office should not have erred in estimating income at 10% of W.I. P in the said circumstances, We most humbly request Your Honour to pass an order u/s. 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 relying on C.I.T. vs Bilhari investment (P) Ltd. (2008) 299 ITR 1 (SC) and Radhasoami Satsang Vs. CIT 193 ITR 321(SC) Le. consistency of system of accounting adopted in earlier years. 3) Addition of Interest paid of Rs. 50,96,138/ paid to Bank of Maharashtra. 06.02.2014 We most Humbly want's to draw Your Honour's kind attention towards the fact that your office has inadvertently stated that our company does not h…

Shree Bal Constructions P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT OSD 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 656/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Shree Bal Constructions Pvt. Ltd., V. Acit – Osd – 2(3) Office No. 4, Buona Casa Mumbai 2Nd Floor, Opp. Kashmir Art Emporium Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aabcs1781J (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit – Osd – 2(3) V. M/S. Shree Bal Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 556, 5Th Floor Office No. 4, Buona Casa Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 2Nd Floor, Opp. Kashmir Art Emporium Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aabcs1781J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 154Section 271(1)(c)

…d circumstances your office should not have erred in estimating income at 10% of W.I. P in the said circumstances, We most humbly request Your Honour to pass an order u/s. 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 relying on C.I.T. vs Bilhari investment (P) Ltd. (2008) 299 ITR 1 (SC) and Radhasoami Satsang Vs. CIT 193 ITR 321(SC) Le. consistency of system of accounting adopted in earlier years. 3) Addition of Interest paid of Rs. 50,96,138/ paid to Bank of Maharashtra. 06.02.2014 We most Humbly want's to draw Your Honour's kind attention towards the fact that your office has inadvertently stated that our company does not h…

Lifecell International Pvt Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3334/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Jan 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3334/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Lifecell International Assistant Commissioner Of Private Ltd., V. Income Tax, No. 26, Vandalur Corporate Circle 4(1), Kelambakkam Main Road, Chennai. Keelakkottaiyur, Chennai. [Pan: Aaeca-7997-B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Ajith Kumar Choradia, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.01.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Ajith Kumar Choradia, CAFor Respondent: Shri. S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT

…income, expenses, assets and liabilities is done only by accounting standards and not by provisions of the Companies Act." (p. 424)’’. 17. Subsequently the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the same principle in the case of CIT vs. Bilahari Investment (P) Ltd, 299 ITR 1. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Taparia Tools Ltd vs. JCIT, 260 ITR 102 had explained the concept of matching principle as under:- "The mercantile system of accounting is based on accrual. Basically, it is a double entry system of accounting. Under the mercantile system of accounting, profits arising or accruing at the date of the tra…

ACIT -3(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Hikal Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the In the result, the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2010

ITA 2320/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 Acit-3(1)(2), Hikal Ltd., Room No. 607, 6Th Floor, 717/718, Maker Chambers V, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aaach 0383 A Appellant Respondent : Revenue By Mr. Sanjay Vishwas Rao Deshmukh, Cit-Dr/ Mr. R.N. D’Souza, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Sanjay Parikh, Ar : Date Of Hearing 02/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/12/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Sanjay Parikh, ARFor Respondent: Revenue by Mr. Sanjay Vishwas Rao
Section 14A

…In the recent exactness in the matter" (at page 552). In the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT v Bilahari Investment judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT v Bilahari Investment judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT v Bilahari Investment P. Ltd. (2008) 299 ITR 1, the facts were these. The assessee P. Ltd. (2008) 299 ITR 1, the facts were these. The assessee P. Ltd. (2008) 299 ITR 1, the facts were these. The assessee was subscribing to chits and was maintaining the accounts was subscribing to chits and was maintaining the accounts was subscribing to chits and was maintaining the accounts on mercantile basi…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore vs. Century Real Estate Holdings Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 740/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella V.P. Pavan Kumar, D.R

…n the payments already received. So this decision doesn't help the assessee but it strengthens the action of the AO. The reliance of the assessee on the decisions in the cases of CIT Vs. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. 46 ITR 144 (SC) and Bilahari Investment (P) Ltd 299 ITR 1 (SC) are also misplaced as the ratios of the said decisions are also not applicable to the facts of the case under consideration. As regards the decision in the case of Excel Industries Ltd 358 ITR 295, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had decided in favour of the assessee as the Revenue had earlier accepted the method followed by it but contested the sam…

Century Real Estate Holdings Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 580/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella V.P. Pavan Kumar, D.R

…n the payments already received. So this decision doesn't help the assessee but it strengthens the action of the AO. The reliance of the assessee on the decisions in the cases of CIT Vs. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. 46 ITR 144 (SC) and Bilahari Investment (P) Ltd 299 ITR 1 (SC) are also misplaced as the ratios of the said decisions are also not applicable to the facts of the case under consideration. As regards the decision in the case of Excel Industries Ltd 358 ITR 295, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had decided in favour of the assessee as the Revenue had earlier accepted the method followed by it but contested the sam…

ACIT 28(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Neel Siddhi Developers, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1693/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleacit 28(2) Vs. M/S Neel Siddhi Room No. 307, 3Rd Floor Developers, Tower No. 6, Vashi Rly 2Nd Floor, Emerald, Stn Complex, Vashi Plot No. 195/B, Navi Mumbai – 400703 Sec-12, Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400 703. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagfn2744N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Chetan M. Kacha.Dr Respondent By : Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi.Ar Date Of Hearing 14.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 24.11.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 26, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Chetan M. Kacha.DRFor Respondent: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi.AR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…te developer is justified instead of the percentage completion method as computed by the department. While giving this finding, the Hon. Tribunal relied upon the decisions of the Hon. Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Bilahari Investment Pvt Ltd reported in 299 ITR 1 (SC) and in case of CIT v. Realest Builder and Services Ltd reported in 307 ITR 202, which have also been relied upon by the assessee. Further, the assessee has also placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble ITAT Bangalore Bench in the case of Prestige Estate Projects Pvt Ltd V/S. DCIT reported in 129 TTJ (Bang) 680 wherein relying upon the decisi…

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

…e. —CIT vs. Khoday Distilleries Ltd. (ITRC Nos. 19, 20 & 21 of 1993) and H.M. Constructions vs. Jt. CIT (2004) 90 TTJ (Bang) 510 : (2003) 84 ITD 429 (Bang) followed; CIT vs. Bilahari Investment (P) Ltd. (2008) 215 CTR (SC) 201 : (2008) 3 DTR (SC) 329 : (2008) 299 ITR 1 (SC) relied on. (Paras 3.17 to 3.21) In case the revised AS-7 is to be applied then the opening inventories are also to be valued as per revised AS-7 though revised AS-7 is not applicable in the case of the assessee. Also on the principle of consistency, the Revenue should have accepted the method of accounting adopted by the assessee as the same…

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

…e. —CIT vs. Khoday Distilleries Ltd. (ITRC Nos. 19, 20 & 21 of 1993) and H.M. Constructions vs. Jt. CIT (2004) 90 TTJ (Bang) 510 : (2003) 84 ITD 429 (Bang) followed; CIT vs. Bilahari Investment (P) Ltd. (2008) 215 CTR (SC) 201 : (2008) 3 DTR (SC) 329 : (2008) 299 ITR 1 (SC) relied on. (Paras 3.17 to 3.21) In case the revised AS-7 is to be applied then the opening inventories are also to be valued as per revised AS-7 though revised AS-7 is not applicable in the case of the assessee. Also on the principle of consistency, the Revenue should have accepted the method of accounting adopted by the assessee as the same…

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

…e. —CIT vs. Khoday Distilleries Ltd. (ITRC Nos. 19, 20 & 21 of 1993) and H.M. Constructions vs. Jt. CIT (2004) 90 TTJ (Bang) 510 : (2003) 84 ITD 429 (Bang) followed; CIT vs. Bilahari Investment (P) Ltd. (2008) 215 CTR (SC) 201 : (2008) 3 DTR (SC) 329 : (2008) 299 ITR 1 (SC) relied on. (Paras 3.17 to 3.21) In case the revised AS-7 is to be applied then the opening inventories are also to be valued as per revised AS-7 though revised AS-7 is not applicable in the case of the assessee. Also on the principle of consistency, the Revenue should have accepted the method of accounting adopted by the assessee as the same…

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)

…d is revenue neutral and consequently no addition could have been in the impugned assessment year. For this proposition, we place reliance on the following decisions – CIT v. Excel Industries Ltd. (2013) 358 ITR 295 (SC) i) CIT v. Bilhari Investment (P.) Ltd 299 ITR 1(SC) ii) 8.4 It is a settled position of law that department cannot collect tax twice on the very same income and observation of the AO is absolutely contrary to the scheme of the Act that income can only' be taxed once more so when the revenue has accepted the income determined using the same method in two ITA Nos.542 to 544/Bang/2021 & CO Nos.17…

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)

…d is revenue neutral and consequently no addition could have been in the impugned assessment year. For this proposition, we place reliance on the following decisions – CIT v. Excel Industries Ltd. (2013) 358 ITR 295 (SC) i) CIT v. Bilhari Investment (P.) Ltd 299 ITR 1(SC) ii) 8.4 It is a settled position of law that department cannot collect tax twice on the very same income and observation of the AO is absolutely contrary to the scheme of the Act that income can only' be taxed once more so when the revenue has accepted the income determined using the same method in two ITA Nos.542 to 544/Bang/2021 & CO Nos.17…

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)

…d is revenue neutral and consequently no addition could have been in the impugned assessment year. For this proposition, we place reliance on the following decisions – CIT v. Excel Industries Ltd. (2013) 358 ITR 295 (SC) i) CIT v. Bilhari Investment (P.) Ltd 299 ITR 1(SC) ii) 8.4 It is a settled position of law that department cannot collect tax twice on the very same income and observation of the AO is absolutely contrary to the scheme of the Act that income can only' be taxed once more so when the revenue has accepted the income determined using the same method in two ITA Nos.542 to 544/Bang/2021 & CO Nos.17…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(3), Bangalore vs. M/S. R. Muniraju (HUF), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the revenue and the CO by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 54/BANG/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 153C

…e to continue with this litigation when it was quite clear that not only was it fruitless (on merits) but also that it may not have added anything much to the public coffers." Similarly, in the case of CIT v. Bilahari Investment (P.) Ltd. [2008] 168 Taxman 95/299 ITR 1 (SC), the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed thus: "20. As stated above, we are concerned with assessment years 1991-1992 to 1997-1998. In the past, the Department had accepted the completed contract method and because of such acceptance, the assessees, in these cases, have followed the same method of accounting, particularly in the context of chit di…

DCIT Circle- 6(3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Kohinoor Planet Construction Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 292/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Jayesh DadiaFor Respondent: Smt. Neelam Shukla
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…nciple of consistency as laid down by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhasoami Satsang vs. CIT: 193 ITR 321 (SC), and the judgment of Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of ITA. No. 292/Mum/2020 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Bilahari Investments (P) Ltd.: 299 ITR 1 (SC) wherein the Project Completion Method has been accepted and approved. 8. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the material on record. The Assessee is engaged in the business of construction and property development. The Assessee had a project on a plot of land bearing CST No. 637/B-II, at village Kurla II, Kurla West, Mumbai w…