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.

Surela Investment & Trading P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 2(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA No

ITA 3770/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

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 Page 6 of 9 ITA No.546/Mum/2009 & Surela Investment & Trading P. Ltd.; AYs:05-06, 08-09 change of method from the completed contract method to deferred Revenue expenditure and held that the completed contract method was not required to be substituted by the percentage completion m…

Surlela Investment & Trading P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 3(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA No

ITA 546/MUM/2009[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2017AY 2005-2006

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

Section 143(3)

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Standard Tele Tower Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

ITA 4480/DEL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Bedobani Chaudhary, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Piyush Kaushik, Adv

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)

…s Ltd., (AY 2010-11) confirming that they have paid advance amount of Rs.7,90,81,632/- to assessee for land development work. Ld. AR placed his reliance upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Bilahari Investments Pvt.Ltd., reported in 299 ITR 1. 9. We have perused submissions advanced by both sides in the light of records placed before us. 10. It is observed that Assessing officer has made addition on an estimated basis on advances received by assessee and brought to tax an amount of Rs.63,26,530/-, being 8% of advance received in year under consideration. Assessing Officer at this junctu…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Chemical Construction International Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3958/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Mar 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2007-08 Vs. M/S. Dcit, Circle-3(1), New Delhi Chemical Construction International Pvt. Ltd., 205, Kushal Bazar, 32-33, Nehru Place, New Delhi Pan : Aaacc0292M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr.Dr Respondent By Sh. A.K. Chadha, Ca Date Of Hearing 28.02.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 27.03.2017 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against Order Dated 07/06/2011 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Iv (In Short “Cit-A”) For Assessment Year 2007-08, Raising Following Grounds: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld.Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting Addition Of Rs.5614565/- On Account Of Contract Receipts, Ignoring The Fact That During The Assessment Proceedings The Assessee Company Failed To Justify Its Abnormally Low G. P. Rate Of 18.16% In Current Year From 28.9% Last Year. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld.Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting Addition Of Rs.14591310/- On Account Of Payment Of Lurgi Life Science(Lls) Germany For Drawing Design Charges, Ignoring The Fact That Benefit Of Enduring Nature Was Drawn By The Assessee.

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…It is not in dispute that the assessee follows the percentage completion method. This is as per the Accounting Standards specified by the ICAI. Judicial notice has been taken of the percentage of completion method in CIT Vs Bilahari Investment (P) Ltd. [2008] 299 ITR 1 (SC). At page 7 & 8, it has been held as under: “On the other hand, the percentage of completion method tries to attain periodic recognition of income in order to reflect current performance. The amount of revenue recognized under this method is determined by reference to stage of completion of the contract. The stage of completion can be looked at…

ACIT, Jaipur vs. Shakuntalam Colonizers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 822/JPR/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

For Appellant: P.C Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Mukesh Verma (CIT)

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

…y, Ld. Counsel for the Assessee supported the order of Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that there is no illegality into the order of Ld. CIT(A) as the issue is no more res-integra as the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Bilahari Investment Private Ltd. 299 ITR 1 (SC) has decided the issue. The reliance is also placed on the judgment of the hon. Delhi High Court in the case of Paras Buildtech India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and another, 382 ITR 630 (Delhi). 5. We have heard the rival contention and perused the material available record and gone through the order of the authorities below.…

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi IV vs. Dlf Universal Ltd

ITA/159/2010HC Delhi21 Dec 2016

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 143Section 145(1)

…It is also held that this mode was approved as a proper method, which identified receipt of income or revenue only upon the completion of the contract. This Court relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Bilahari Investment P. Ltd. [2008] 299 ITR 1 (SC) where both the methods of accounting were specified and which stated inter alia as follows: - “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 meth…

ITO 16(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Matushree Builders & Developers, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 6178/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.6178/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) I.T.O. – 16(2)(2), M/S Matushree Builders & बनाम/ R. No. 214, 2Nd Floor, Developers, V. Matru Mandir, 8-A, Gr. Flr., Tardeo Road, Apollo House, Mumbai – 400 007. B.S. Marg, Fort, Mumbai – 400 023. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan :Aanfm0260F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri BeharilalFor Respondent: Shri Neil Philip

Section 143(3)Section 145

…pend on the method of accounting. Two methods are prescribed in Accounting Standard No.7. They are "completed contract method" and "percentage of completion method". This view was reiterated by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Bilahari Investment (P.) Ltd. [2008] 299 ITR 1/168 Taxman 95 with the following observations: "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 anot…

Hero Motocorp Limited, New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1545/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishihero Motocorp Limited, Jcit, 34, Basant Lok, Vasant Range-1, New Delhi Vs. Vihar, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0812J (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community Vs. New Delhi Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. NC Sawain, CIT DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…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 Hero MotoCorp Limited Vs. JCIT & DCIT Vs. Hero MotoCorp Ltd. ITA Nos. 1545/Del/2015 and 2424/Del/2015 (AY 2010-11) ITA No. 1609/Del/2016 and 914/Del/2016 (AY 201…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Sky Top Builders Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the revenue's appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 51/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri Kamaladhar, Standing CounselFor Respondent: Shri Chandrashekar V, Advocate

…n the assesseeis consistently following this method then the Assessing Officer cannot disturb the method regularly followed 6 by the assessee. He has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v Bilahari Investment (P) Ltd. (2008) 299 ITR 1 (SC). 6. We have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record. The Assessing Officer proceeded to recomputed the income of the assessee by recording the fact that the assessee has claimed on its web site that more than 1000 sites have already been registered. It is pertinent to note that this project is only the de…

Shib Narayan Kshettry -HUF, Kolkata vs. The ITO, WD-38(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 723/KOL/2015[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Sept 2016AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

Section 55(2)

…I.T.A. No. 723/KOL./2015 Assessment year: 2006-2007 Page 1 of 12 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA ‘A(SMC)’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri P.M. Jagtap, Accountant Member I.T.A. No. 723 /KOL/ 2015 Assessment Year: 2006-2007 Shib Narayan Kehettry-HUF,...................................................Appellant 44, Ram Dulal Sarkar Street, Kolkata-700 006 [PAN: AAGHS 7318 B] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,.................................................................Respondent Ward-38(4), Kolkata Appearances by: Shri S.K. Tulsian, A.R., for the assessee Smt. Sucheta Chattopadhyay, JCIT, D.R., for the Departm…

Asst CIT 15(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Desh Consultancy Services P. Ltd, Navi Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7315/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Pawan Singh (Jm)

…not have disturbed the said method followed by the assessee as per decision taken by the Assessing Officer himself in A.Y. 2003-04. Accordingly, by following the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Bilahari Investments (P) Ltd. (299 ITR 1), learned CIT(A) took the view that there is no reason to disturb the method consistently adopted by the assessee. 4. We noticed that learned CIT(A) has misdirected himself in appreciating the reasons on which disallowance was made by the Assessing Officer. As noticed earlier the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim on the reasoning that the ass…

M/S. Tata Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. The ITO 2(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 4894/MUM/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2016AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Accoutant Member & Shri Sanjay Gargtata Industries Ltd., Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- Bombay House,24,Homi 2 (3) (3), Room No.555, Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi 400 001 Karve Road, Mumbai 400 020 Pan: Aaact 4058 L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By Shri Dinesh Vyas, Ar Respondent By Shri Alok Johri, Dr Date Of Hearing 22-06-2016 Date Of Pronouncement 20-07-2016

Section 10ASection 115JSection 14ASection 36

…lhi Tribunal) In this case, the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal (Shri K. C. Singhal and Shri G. S. Pannu) applied the 12 above decision of the Apex Court. The Tribunal entertained a question which had not been raised earlier at any stage. (iii) Birmala L. Mehta – 299 ITR 1 (Bombay High Court) In this case, the Bombay High Court observed as follows: “Article 265 of the Constitution of India unmistakable terms provides that no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law. Acquiescence cannot take away from a party the relief that he is entitled to where the tax is levied or collected without authority of…

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)

…rtment. In the circumstances, we see no reason to interfere with the conclusion given by the High Court and the Tribunal. " 4.3 This view is also supported by several decisions some of which are cited below:- (i) CIT vs. Bilahari Investments (P.) Ltd. [2008] 299 ITR 1 (SC); (ii) Bakshi Vikram Vikas Construction Co. (P.) Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT [2007] 158 Taxman 61 (Delhi) (Mag.): (iii) IRB Infrastructure Ltd. vs. ITO [2008] 115 ITD 374 (Mum.); and 5 ITA No.4541/Del./2010 (iv) Awadhesh Builders vs. ITO [2010] 37 SOT 122 (Mum). 4.4 Under the facts and circumstances of the case stated above, it is held that the additio…

The Commissioner of Income Taxc vs. M/S Ncr Corporation India Pvt Ltd

ITA/836/2009HC Karnataka16 Jun 2016

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 260Section 263Section 43Section 43B

…ot be erroneous if the AO has adopted one of the views, which is permissible in law. The order is erroneous if the view adopted by the AO is not permissible in law. 8. The Special Bench in the case of DCIT v Glaxo Smithkline Consumer Healthcare Ltd. 299 ITR 1 has held as under after applying the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v New Horizon Sugar Mills (P) Ltd. 269 ITR 397- “It is not necessary that the assessee must prove incurring of a specific liability under any statute referred to in the different clauses of section 43B. It must be an expenditure connected and rel…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Swatantra Land and Finance Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 568/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Anima Banwal, Sr. DR

Section 145Section 80I

…essments framed u/s 143(3) of the Act for assessment years 1998-99 and 2003-04. The Ld. AR relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs Realest Builders and Services Ltd. 307 ITR 202 (S.C.) and CIT vs Balahari Investment Pvt. Ltd. 299 ITR 1(S.C.) for the proposition that both the project completion method and the percentage of completion method can achieve the same result. It was submitted that neither any defect has been pointed out in the method of accounting being followed by the assessee nor has any concrete finding been given that correct profits cannot be computed following the…

Swatantra Land & Finance Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 143/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Anima Banwal, Sr. DR

Section 145Section 80I

M/S. Shipra Estate Ltd. & Jai Krishan Estate Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is

ITA 5849/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2009-10 Ay: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Vidharthi, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 80I

…d. Here also, the method suggested by the Assessing Officer will only result into profit for each year being different but the overall profitability will be the same. He relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Bilahari Investment (2008) 299 ITR 1 for the preposition that 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, the Department can insist on substitution of I.T.A. No…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Shipra Estate Ltd., & Jai Krishna Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is

ITA 5614/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2009-10 Ay: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Vidharthi, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 80I

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Shipra Estate Ltd. & Jai Krishan Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is

ITA 1950/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2009-10 Ay: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Vidharthi, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 80I

ACIT Cir 12(3), Mumbai vs. Stelmet Marketing, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA N0

ITA 6168/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6168/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) A.C.I.T. Circle – 12(3), M/S Stelmet Marketing, बनाम/ R. No. 137, Ist Floor, 219, Maker Chamber, V, V. Aayakar Bhawan, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400 021 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaefs8102K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Choksi

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…ir and open manner before the Revenue to judge the case. The assessee firm relied on the decision in the case of ITO v. Veena Estates P. Ltd., 81 ITD 401 and also the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bilahari Investment Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [2008] 299 ITR 1 (SC) and CIT v. Realest Builders & Services Ltd. [2008] 170 Taxman 218 (SC). The assessee firm submitted that the commission income which is subject of dispute had been declared as income in the assessment year 2007-08 before detection by the A.O. and due taxes paid to the Revenue. Mere rejection of the claim for allowing method of accounting consi…