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.

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 1)

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

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

ITA 4199/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

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…

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

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

ITA 4198/MUM/2017[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2019AY 2008-2009

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…

Laxmi Industrial Estate, Mumbai vs. ACIT 24(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 6979/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

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…

Laxmi Industrial Estate, Mumbai vs. ACIT 24(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 6978/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

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…

Laxmi Industrial Estate, Mumbai vs. ACIT 24(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 6977/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2019AY 2007-08

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…

Cavalcade Properties P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 12(1)(4), Mumbai

Accordingly, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4030/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am& Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 4030/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, AR byFor Respondent: Shri Awangshi Gimson, DR

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM& SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 4030/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) ITO Ward 12(1)(4), M/s Cavalcade Properties Aayakar Bhavan, Pvt. Ltd. Churchgate, बिधम/ Plot No. C-30, G-Block, Mumbai-400 020 Opp-SIDBI, Bandra Kurla Vs. Complex, Bandra (east), Mumbai 400 051 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN No. AACCC6226B (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 4273/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) ITO Ward 12(1)(4), M/s Cavalcade Properties Aayakar Bhavan, Pvt…

Pr Commissioner of Wealth Tax-6 vs. M R Kodandram

Appeals stand dismissed

WTA/11/2017HC Karnataka18 Oct 2019

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,ASHOK S.KINAGI

Section 260Section 260A

…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 Commissioner of Income-tax V/s. Bilahari Investment [P.]. Ltd., [(2008) 215 CTR 201 (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 - 20 - same method of accounti…

M/S. L & T Hochtief Seabird Joint Venture, Mumbai vs. The Dy It Cir 12(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2901/MUM/2008[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2019AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 L&T Hochtief Seabird Joint Dy. Commissioner Of Venture Vs. Income Tax Range 12(2), Taxation Department, L&T Room No. 114, 1St Floor, House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Aayakarbhavan, M.K. Estate, Mumbai-400001 Marg, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaaal0284E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. J.D. Mistry, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Nishant Samaiya, DR

Section 143

…thod of accounting regularly employed by the assessee cannot be disturbed and in this regard reliance is placed by him on the decision in Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. (106 ITR 363), Realest Builders & Services Ltd. (307 ITR 202), Bilahari Investments (P.) Ltd. (299 ITR 1), Excel Industries Ltd. (358 ITR L&T Hochtief Seabird Joint 295), Snow White Food Products Co. Ltd. (141 ITR 861), Nagri Mills Co. Ltd. (33 ITR 681), Balapur Vibhag Jungle Kamdar Mandal Ltd. (135 ITR 91), Alfa Laval India Ltd. (113 Taxman 740) and India Motor Parts & Accessories (P.) Ltd. (60 ITR 531). 24. On the other hand, the Ld. DR submits tha…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore vs. M/S Infosys Bpo Ltd, Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1333/BANG/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Sept 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt.Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Miss. Neera Malhotra, CIT, DR

Section 10ASection 14ASection 40

…decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in case of Schneider Electric IT business India Pvt. Ltd., vs JCIT in ITA No. 299/B/2014 vide order dated 30/04/19 and decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Bilahari Investment Pvt. Ltd reported in (2008) 299 ITR 1. Ld.AR vide his written submission dated 16/07/19, submitted that Assessing Officer in earlier years accepted accounting of deferred revenue and addition has been made by Ld. AO only for assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09. He placed reliance upon customer wise breakup of deferred revenue along with date of revenue recognition during financial yea…

Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in IT(TP) A No

ITA 781/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Waseem Ahmed1. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No. 1782/Del/2014 2. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No. 781/Del/2015 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11) Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. The Dcit बनाम/ 12Th Floor, Devika Tower Circle-21(1), New Vs. 6, Nehru Place, New Delhi Delhi/ 110 019 Addl.Cit Range-15 New Delhi "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacr0127N .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S.N.Soparkar, Shri Vartik Chokshi, Ms.Urvashi Shodhan & Shri P.Shah, Ars ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Mahesh Shah, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri S.N.Soparkar, Shri Vartik ChokshiFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Shah, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92D

…s work and that "the endeavor can only be to be approximate and there cannot in the very nature of things be great precision and exactness in the matter" (at page 552). In the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Bilahari Investment (P.) Ltd. [2008] 299 ITR 1/168 Taxman 95, the facts were these. The assessee was subscribing to chits and was maintaining the accounts on mercantile basis. The discount on the chits, which was actually the profit arising to the assessee, was declared at the end of the chit period, which at times exceed a period of 12 months. This method adopted by the assessee was being acce…

M/S. Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited, New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in IT(TP) A No

ITA 1782/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Waseem Ahmed1. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No. 1782/Del/2014 2. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No. 781/Del/2015 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11) Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. The Dcit बनाम/ 12Th Floor, Devika Tower Circle-21(1), New Vs. 6, Nehru Place, New Delhi Delhi/ 110 019 Addl.Cit Range-15 New Delhi "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacr0127N .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S.N.Soparkar, Shri Vartik Chokshi, Ms.Urvashi Shodhan & Shri P.Shah, Ars ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Mahesh Shah, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri S.N.Soparkar, Shri Vartik ChokshiFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Shah, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92D

…s work and that "the endeavor can only be to be approximate and there cannot in the very nature of things be great precision and exactness in the matter" (at page 552). In the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Bilahari Investment (P.) Ltd. [2008] 299 ITR 1/168 Taxman 95, the facts were these. The assessee was subscribing to chits and was maintaining the accounts on mercantile basis. The discount on the chits, which was actually the profit arising to the assessee, was declared at the end of the chit period, which at times exceed a period of 12 months. This method adopted by the assessee was being acce…

M/S Jokhiram Durgadutt, Ranchi vs. DCIT Circle-1, Rnc

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 47/RAN/2018[14-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi30 Aug 2019

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.47/Ran/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Jokhiram Durgadutt, Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi Sarawgi House, J.J.Road, Upper Bazar, Ranchi-834001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aabfj 2200 Q (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. निर्धाऩिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.S.Paul, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.K.Mondal, Addl.Cit(Dr)

For Appellant: Shri P.S.Paul, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mondal, Addl.CIT(DR)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, रााँची न्यायपीठ, रााँची IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI श्री चन्द्र मोहन गगग, न्द्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री एऱ.पी.साहु, ऱेखा सदस्य के समऺ । BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JM AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, AM आयकर अपीऱ सं./ITA No.47/RAN/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/s Jokhiram Durgadutt, Vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Ranchi Sarawgi House, J.J.Road, Upper Bazar, Ranchi-834001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ PAN/GIR No. : AABFJ 2200 Q (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. निर्धाऩिती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri P.S.Paul, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri P.K.Monda…

Addl CIT -- 10(1), Mumbai vs. Agc Network Ltd ( Formerly Known As Avaya Global Connect Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 5157/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA no.5157/Mum./2012 (Assessment Year : 2008–09) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Circle–10(1), Mumbai v/s AGC Network Ltd. (Formerly known as Avaya Global Connect Ltd.) Equinox Business Park, Tower–1 ……………. Respondent (Peninsula Techno Park) Off. Bandra Kurla Complex LBS Marg, Kurla (West) Mumbai 400 070 PAN – AAACT3992M ITA no.5434/Mum./2012 (Assessment Year : 2008–09) AGC Network Ltd. (Formerly known as Avaya Global Connect Ltd.) Equinox Business…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Indus Towers Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2242/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 37(1)Section 44A

…Apex Court in case of Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. (1997) 91 Taxman 351 (SC). The Ld. AR relied upon the following judicial decisions:- i) CIT vs. Reliance Industrial Infrastructure Ltd. (2015) 234 Taxman 256 ii) CIT vs. Bilahari Investment (P.) Ltd. (2008) 299 ITR 1 (SC) iii) CIT vs. Realest Builders & Services Ltd. (2008) 307 ITR 202 (SC) iv) CIT vs. Excel Industries Ltd. (2013) 358 ITR 295 (SC) v) CIT vs. Vishnu Industrial Gases Pvt. Ltd. (ITR No. 229/1988 [Del. Tri.]) vi) CIT vs. Dinesh Kumar Goel (2011) 331 ITR 10 (Del) vii) CIT vs. Nagri Mills Co. Ltd. (1958) 33 ITR 681 (Bom) 10. We have heard both t…

Indus Towers Ltd., Gurgaon vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1040/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 37(1)Section 44A

…Apex Court in case of Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. (1997) 91 Taxman 351 (SC). The Ld. AR relied upon the following judicial decisions:- i) CIT vs. Reliance Industrial Infrastructure Ltd. (2015) 234 Taxman 256 ii) CIT vs. Bilahari Investment (P.) Ltd. (2008) 299 ITR 1 (SC) iii) CIT vs. Realest Builders & Services Ltd. (2008) 307 ITR 202 (SC) iv) CIT vs. Excel Industries Ltd. (2013) 358 ITR 295 (SC) v) CIT vs. Vishnu Industrial Gases Pvt. Ltd. (ITR No. 229/1988 [Del. Tri.]) vi) CIT vs. Dinesh Kumar Goel (2011) 331 ITR 10 (Del) vii) CIT vs. Nagri Mills Co. Ltd. (1958) 33 ITR 681 (Bom) 10. We have heard both t…

Darshanam Life Space Pvt. Ltd., Baroda vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Baroda

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

ITA 1662/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1590/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 D.C.I.T, M/S.Darshanam Life Space Pvt. Circle-1(1)(1), Ltd. Vs. 1St Floor, 3Rd Floor, Platinium Complex, Aaykar Bhavan, Race Course Subhanpura, Circle, Vadodara-390007. Opp. Ganga Jamna Hospital, Vadodara-390023. Pan: Aadcd2030M

For Appellant: Shri Mukund Bakshi, A.R

…mpletion / Unit Sale Method is a recognized method. - Manjusha Estates Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO 393 ITR 644 (Guj.) - CIT vs. Hill View Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 384 ITR 451 (P&H) - Manish Buildwell P. Ltd. 204 Taxman 106 (Del.) - CIT vs. Bilahari Investment Pvt. Ltd. 299 ITR 1(SC) - CIT vs. Hyundai Heavy Industry Co. Ltd. 291 ITR 482 Further reliance is also placed on the following: - CIT vs. Happy Home Corporation – 94 taxmann.com 292 (Gujarat) - CIT vs. DLF Universal Ltd. – 88 taxmann.com 500 (Delhi) ITA nos.1590 & 1662/AHD/2016 Asstt. Year 2012-13 12 c) Mere postponement of tax as a result of method employed by the…

A.C.I.T Cir - 2(2), Kolkata vs. M/S West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1952/KOL/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Apr 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1952/Kol/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05) Acit, Circle-2(2), Kolkata Vs. M/S West Bengal State Electricity Board (Now Renamed West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. )

For Appellant: Shri RadheyShyam, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Poddar, Sr. Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 4

…Such items without investigation into the facts about the crystallization of such dues cannot be disallowed merely on the ground that they relate to transactions pertaining to an earlier accounting year ... " 12.In CIT V. Bilahari Investment P. Ltd., [2008] 299 ITR 1 (SC), while dealing with accounting standards, their Lordships referred to the decisions in Taporia Tools Ltd. v. Joint CIT, [2003] 260 ITR 102 (Bombay) and J.K. Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, [2007] 13 Scale 204 and thereafter adverted to the recognition and identification of income under the 1961 Act as is attainable by several methods of acc…

ITO 14(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Sea Sagar Construction Co., Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by Revenue in ITA No

ITA 3751/MUM/2014[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2019AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.3751/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2000-01) बिाम/ Ito 14(2)(2) M/S. Sea Sagar R.No. 304, 3 Rd Floor, Construction Company, Earnest House, Abhay House, 1St Floor, V. Nariman Point, 428, Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai- 400021 Mumbai 400002 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aacfs2838L (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri. D.G Pansari Assessee By: Shri. Nitesh Joshi सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 30.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue , Being Ita No. 3751/Mum/2014, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 12.03.2014, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-25, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”) Vide Cit(A)-25/It-204/14(2)(2)/11-12, For Assessment Year 2000-01, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 29.12.2011 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 254 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2000-01. This Is Second Round Of Litigation Before The Tribunal. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By Revenue In The Memo Of Appeal Filed With The Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Tribunal”) Read As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri. Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri. D.G Pansari

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “E” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.3751/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2000-01) बिाम/ ITO 14(2)(2) M/s. Sea Sagar R.No. 304, 3 rd Floor, Construction Company, Earnest House, Abhay House, 1st Floor, v. Nariman Point, 428, Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai- 400021 Mumbai 400002 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ PAN: AACFS2838L (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue by: Shri. D.G Pansari Assessee by: Shri. Nitesh Joshi सुनवाई की तारीख /Date of…

Hero Motocorp Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 11(1), New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1351/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Amount of Proposed international

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C

…h the methods, one adopted by 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.” 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 exis…

Safal Engineers & Associates, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT (OSD), Circle-9, Ahmedabad

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 108/AHD/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri P. M. Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shiv Sewak, Sr. D.R

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

…owed in the current year only and not the subsequent year i.e. A.Y. 2009-10 as directed by the Learned CIT(A). The Learned AR relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of CIT-vs-Bilahari Investment Pvt. Ltd. reported in [2008] 299 ITR 1 (SC), J.K. Industries Ltd and another-vs-Union of India and others reported in [2008] 297 ITR 176 (SC) and also in the matter passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of CIT- vs-Woodward Governor India Pvt. Ltd. reported in [2009] 312 ITR 254 (SC). The Learned Departmental representative, however, relied upon the order passed by the author…

CIT v. Bilahari Investment (P) Ltd.

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

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

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

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

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

Laxmi Industrial Estate, Mumbai vs. ACIT 24(3), Mumbai

Laxmi Industrial Estate, Mumbai vs. ACIT 24(3), Mumbai

Laxmi Industrial Estate, Mumbai vs. ACIT 24(3), Mumbai

Cavalcade Properties P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 12(1)(4), Mumbai

Pr Commissioner of Wealth Tax-6 vs. M R Kodandram

M/S. L & T Hochtief Seabird Joint Venture, Mumbai vs. The Dy It Cir 12(2), Mumbai

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore vs. M/S Infosys Bpo Ltd, Bangalore

Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

M/S. Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited, New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

M/S Jokhiram Durgadutt, Ranchi vs. DCIT Circle-1, Rnc

Addl CIT -- 10(1), Mumbai vs. Agc Network Ltd ( Formerly Known As Avaya Global Connect Ltd), Mumbai

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Indus Towers Ltd., New Delhi

Indus Towers Ltd., Gurgaon vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

Darshanam Life Space Pvt. Ltd., Baroda vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Baroda

A.C.I.T Cir - 2(2), Kolkata vs. M/S West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co Ltd, Kolkata

ITO 14(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Sea Sagar Construction Co., Mumbai

Hero Motocorp Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 11(1), New Delhi

Safal Engineers & Associates, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT (OSD), Circle-9, Ahmedabad