How many judgments cite CIT v. Bilahari Investment (P) Ltd.?

206 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Bilahari Investment (P) Ltd. (299 ITR 1), spanning 2010 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Bilahari Investment (P) Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 144B, Section 145(3), Section 10(1), Section 148, Section 151A, Section 143(3).

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 144B Section 145(3)Section 10(1)Section 148 Section 151A Section 143(3)Section 145 Section 36(1)(iii)

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 145(1)project completion method percentage completion method section 211 section 145(2)section 43c jda principal officer icds mercantile system of accounting section 21 right to receive

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

M/S Ekta Housing Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT Central Circle-6(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1732/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood ()

…l available on record, as well as considered the judicial pronouncements that have been pressed into service by them to drive home their respective contentions. As observed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Bilhari Investment (P) Ltd. (2008) 299 ITR 1 (SC) that an assesseehaving all along followed the completed contract method, and the Department having accepted the same over several years, the completed contract method adopted by the assessees is not required to be substituted by percentage completion method in the absence of any finding of the A.O that the completed contract method distorts th…

Hero Motocrop Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 11(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 9187/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 145ASection 80ISection 92C

…the assessee and the other by the department. In the circumstances, there was no reason to interfere with the conclusion given by the High Court.” Hero Motocorp Ltd. vs. ACIT 7.20 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Bilahari Investment P. Ltd. 299 ITR 1 (SC) held as follows: “Every assessee is entitled to arrange its affairs and follow the method of accounting, which the Department has earlier accepted. It is only in those cases where the Department records a finding that the method adopted by the assessee results in distortion of profits that the Department can insist on substitution of the exist…

Pr.Commissioner vs. M/S. Esteem Classic

In the result, the appeals preferred by the Revenue

ITA/844/2018HC Karnataka22 Mar 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.G.S. KAMAL

Section 260Section 260A

…r the same is not in accordance with law. In support of 12 the aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on the decisions of: i) CIT vs. EXCEL INDUSTRIES (2013) 358 ITR 295 (SC) ii) CIT vs. BILAHARI INVESTMENTS (2008) 299 ITR 1 (SC) It is also pointed out that the completed contract method of computation has been accepted by the Revenue for the subsequent Assessment years 2013- 2014 and 2014-2015. 8. We have considered the submissions made on both sides and have perused the afore-mentioned decisions carefully. On perusal of the afore-mentioned…

Pr.Commissioner vs. M/S. Esteem Classic

In the result, the appeals preferred by the Revenue

ITA/843/2018HC Karnataka22 Mar 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.G.S. KAMAL

Section 260Section 260A

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 5 vs. M/S Ncr Corporation (India) Pvt Ltd

Appeal is dismissed

ITA/254/2020HC Karnataka26 Feb 2021

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 260ASection 32(1)Section 37

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA I.T.A. NO.254/2020 BETWEEN 1. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 5 BMTC COMPLEX, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX CIRCLE-12(2) 14/3, 4TH FLOOR, RASTROTHANA BHAVAN,(OPP. RBI) NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI SANMATHI E I, ADVOCATE) AND M/S NCR CORPORATION (INDIA) PVT LTD., NO.11, 3RD FLOOR, NILTON BUILDING, PALACE R…

M/S. Veerabhadrappa Sangappa & Company, Sandur vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1, Bellary

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1054/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013–14

For Appellant: Shri Chythanya K.K, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT

Section 145Section 28Section 5

…over the years. A.10.1 Ld.Counsel submitted that, principle of matching between revenue receipt and expenditure to be incurred is to be applied. Reference was made to decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Bilahari Investment (P) Ltd. reported in (2008) 299 ITR 1, wherein referring to concept of matching Hon’ble Court observed that: “82. Matching Concept is based on the accounting period concept. The paramount object of running a business is to earn profit. In order to ascertain the profit made by the business during a period, it is necessary that “revenues” of the period should be matched with the costs (e…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S. Medi Assist (India)

In the result, the third

ITA/593/2013HC Karnataka21 Oct 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 145(2)Section 260Section 260A

…iness of third party agent is business of insurance'. It is also argued that the tribunal as well as the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) grossly erred in placing reliance on the decision in the case of 'CIT VS. BILHARI INVESTMENTS (P.) LTD.', 299 ITR 1 (SC) and the aforesaid decision is distinguishable and is not applicable to the facts of the case. It is also pointed out that in the aforesaid decision the issue which arose for 9 consideration was whether the assessee is entitled to recognize the revenue in respect of chit discount amount only in the year of termination of chit peri…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4, Jaipur vs. M/S Tirupati Buildiners and Devlopers, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 920/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Sept 2020AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Paul (Addl.CIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 143(3)Section 145(2)Section 145(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “A”, JAIPUR Jh jes'k lh 'kekZ] ys[kk lnL; ,oa Jh lanhi x®lkÃa] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI RAMESH C SHARMA, AM & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 920/JP/2019 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2015-16 Deputy Commissioner of cuke M/s Tirupati Builders & Vs. Income Tax, Developers, Circle-4, F-114, Venkateshwara Tower, Jaipur. Central Spine, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAEFT 6450 F vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Runi Pau…

DCIT - 15(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Kalsha Builders Pvt. Ltd., Navi Mumbai

ITA 1202/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sooddcit-15(2)(1) M/S Kalsha Builders Pvt. Ltd. R. No. 357, 3Rd Floor, A-1, Ashian Sector-17, Vashi, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan,M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400 705 Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan – Aaack3955F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. Bhoopati, D.RFor Respondent: Shri J.P. Bairagra, A.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…r aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Tata Iron & Steel Co .Ltd. (1977)106 ITR 363 (Bom). Also, as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Bill Hari Investment Ltd. (2008) 299 ITR 1 DCIT-15(2)(1) Vs. M/s Kalsha Builders Pvt. ltd. 7 ITA No. 1202/Mum/2019 A.Y. 2013-14 (SC), every assessee is entitled to arrange its affairs and follow the method which the department had earlier accepted. It was further observed by the Hon’ble Court, that it was only in those cases where the department records a finding that the method adopted b…

Hi-Tech Estates & Promoters Pvt. Ltd., Bhubaneswar vs. Principal CIT-1, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 391/CTK/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Jul 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri B.D.Ojha , ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT, DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

…of such method which could not be held as non-applicable to the assessee’s case only on the basis of whims and surmises. Ld A.R. also drew our attention towards the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Bilahari Investment (P) Ltd, (2008) 299 ITR 1 (SC) and submitted that the percentage completion method tries to attain periodic recognition of income in order to reflect current performance and the amount of revenue recognised under this method is determined by reference to the stage of completion of the contract and this method is only applicable and suitable in the case of the assessee whe…

M/S. Runwal Developers P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir. -4(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 5622/MUM/2017[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Runwal Developers Deputy Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Income, 5Th Floor, Runwal & Central Circle -4(1), Omkar Esquare Off, Vs. Mumbai Eastern Express Highway, Sion (E) Mumbai – 400 022 Pan: Aaacr0395J (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Rakesh Joshi, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Rajeshwar Yadav, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.07.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.07.2020 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajeshwar Yadav, D.R

Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)

…year in which the project is completed. Since both the project for the flats as well as shops were notcompleted during the year therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. M/S Bilahari Investment (P) Ltd 299 ITR 1 (SC), Special Bench decision of the Mumbai Benches of the Tribunal in the case of Wall Street Construction Ltd. vs. JCIT 101 ITD 156 (SB)(Mum); ITO vs. Panchvati Developers 115 TTJ 139 (Mum) and that of JCIT vs. K Raheja (P) Ltd. 102 ITD 314 (Mum), we delete the addition during the impugned assessment year and direct the AO to make the addition in…

The Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S. Banjara Developers & Constructions Pvt. Ltd

ITA/153/2012HC Karnataka08 Jul 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145Section 145(1)Section 148Section 260Section 260A

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR I.T.A. NO.153 OF 2012 BETWEEN: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOIME-TAX C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE. 2. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD-11(1), C.R. BUILDING QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.,) AND: M/S. BANJARA DEVELOPERS AND CONSTRUCTIONS PVT., LTD., NO.418, I MAIN, I BLOCK R.T. NAGAR BANGALORE-560032. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PUKALE MANOJ DEVINDER,…

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)

…ed at page no 172 to 185 of the Paper book], wherein the Hon'ble Delhi High court, following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs. Hyundai Heavy Industries Co Ltd (2007) 291 ITR 482 and in case of CIT v. Bilahari Investment (P.) Ltd. [2008] 299 ITR 1 , has held that the project completion method is one of the recognized methods of accounting and it cannot be said that the project completion method followed by the assessee would result in deferment of the payment of the taxes which are to be assessed annually under the IT Act. The relevant para of the order is reproduced below for Your Honour's…

Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/S Ncr Corporation Pvt Ltd

In the result we do not find any merit in the appeal

ITA/242/2011HC Karnataka16 Jun 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 260Section 260A

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA I.T.A. NO.242 OF 2011 BETWEEN: 1. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III C.R BUILDINGS, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE-560001. 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE12 (1), BANGALORE ... APPELLANTS (By Sri.E.I.SANMATHI, ADV.,) AND: M/S NCR CORPORATION PVT LTD 11, 3RD FLOOR, NITON BUILDING, PALACE ROAD,BANGALORE42 ... RESPONDENT (By Sri.T.SURYANARAYANA, ADV.) - - - THIS ITA IS FILED UND…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Prestige Estate Projects Pvt Ltd

Appeal is hereby dismissed

ITA/84/2010HC Karnataka05 May 2020

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

Section 142(1)Section 145Section 154Section 260A

…ccounting, which the Department has earlier accepted. Under similar circumstances as obtained from the facts on hand, Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs 15 BILAHARI INVESTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED reported in (2008)299 ITR 1 (SC) has held: “Recognition/identification of income under the 1961 Act is attainable by several methods of accounting. It may be noted that the same result could be attained by any one of the accounting methods. The completed contract method is one such method. Similarly, the percentage of completion method is another such m…

Surela Investment & Trading P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD)-2(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6031/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6031/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08)

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Vinod Kumar

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…d contract method followed by the assessee was correct and resort to section 145(1) was not justified. 7. The learned Counsel for the assessee also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of CIT vs. Bilhari Investment Pvt. Ltd. (2008) 299 ITR 1 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the issue of change of method from the 7 I.T.A. No. 6031/Mum/2017 Surela Investments & Trading Pvt. Ltd. completed contract method to deferred Revenue expenditure and held that the completed contract method was not required to be substituted by the percentage completion method despite the fact…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Manish Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 5716/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Ms Suchitra Kamble & Vs Acit, Manish Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-11, Iind Floor, Usha Chambers, Room No.364, Ara Centre, 37-38, Central Market, Jhandewalan Extn., Ashok Vihar, Phase – I, New Delhi. New Delhi (Pan: Abfpg 1603 F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Ms. Pramita M. Biswas, Cit-D.R. Respondent By Ms. Swaty Kothari, C.A. Date Of Hearing 16.12.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 31.12.2019

Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68

…000/- in this behalf.” This finding of the Tribunal was also confirmed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 15.11.2011 (ITA No. 928/2011) by following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Bilahari Investment P. Ltd. (2008) 299 ITR 1 (SC). Before the Assessing Officer the Assessee submitted that percentage completion method cannot be applied in assessee’s case as the assessee after construction and development of space is selling such spaces to various customers and assessee recognizes such income on the sale of these spaces. Thus, the assessee demonstrated before the Assessing…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Manish Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 5715/DEL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2019AY 2007-08

Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68

M/S.Kathawala Realtors LLP, Mumbai vs. DCIT(A)-6(4), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1633/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: S/shri Naresh Jain, Mahavir Jain A.R‟sFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, D.R

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…or real estate developers it was mandatory for the assessee to have followed “percentage completion method” for recognizing revenue as regards the same. We may herein observe that the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Bilahari Investments Pvt. ltd. 299 ITR 1 (SC) has held that a recognition/identification of income under the Act is attainable by several methods of accounting and that project completion method is one of such acceptable method. As observed by us hereinabove, a perusal of the „financial statements‟ of the assessee reveals that the receipts of the units booked were accounted for by the ass…

Laxmi Industrial Estate, Mumbai vs. ACIT-31(2), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed to the extent indicated in the order

ITA 4200/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.6977/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2007-08) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4198/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2008-09) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.6978/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2010-11) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.6979/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2011-12) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4199/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2012-13) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4200/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2013-14) Laxmi Industrial Estate Acit-31(2) बनाम/ 99, Prabhu Niwas Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Room No.708 Jawahar Nagar, Road No.15 Vs. C-11, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400 062. Mumbai-400 051. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafl-1382-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Reepal Tralshawala –Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Satish Chandra Rajore-Ld. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Reepal Tralshawala –Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Satish Chandra Rajore-Ld. DR

…n disturbed by the revenue. Therefore, treating the similar expenditure as periodic cost in few years while disturbing the same sporadically in other years, could not be held to be justified. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in CIT V/s Bilahari Investment Ltd. 2008 299 ITR 1 held that every assessee was entitled to arrange its affairs and follow the method of accounting, which the Laxmi Industrial Estate Assessment Years: 2007-08 to 2008-09, 2010-11 to 2013-14 department has earlier accepted. It is only in those cases where the department records a finding that the method adopted by the assessee results in distortion o…