What is CIT v. Brahma Associates authority for?

A developer is entitled to proportionate deduction under Section 80IB(10) for housing projects even if certain conditions, such as unit built-up area limits, are not fully met across all units. Additionally, the conditions introduced by Section 80IB(10)(d) apply prospectively to projects commenced and sanctioned before April 1, 2005.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Brahma Associates?

97 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Brahma Associates (333 ITR 289), spanning 2014 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Brahma Associates come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 80IB(10), Section 144, Section 147, Section 80IB, Section 80IB(10)(d), Section 143(3).

CIT v. Brahma Associates (333 ITR 289)

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Bombay Slum Redevelopment Corporation Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6126/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Mr. Mahaveer Jain a/wFor Respondent: 04/12/2025

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dy. CIT, Bombay Slum Redevelopment Room No. 420, Kautilya Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Bhawan, G Block, Bandra 707, Trade Centre, Bandra Kurla Complex, Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400051. PAN NO. AABCB 0248 H Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Mahaveer Jain a/w Mr. Bhavesh Bhatia : Mr. Solgy Jose T. Kottaram, CIT-DR Revenue by : 04/12/2025 Date of Hearing Date of pronouncement : 23/12/2025 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM…

Avinash S Sadamate, ACIT, Circle 3 3 1 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Rashmi Infrastructure Developers Limited, Mumbai

In the result, both the Revenue's appeal and Cross

ITA 6605/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal / Jay Bhansali, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Uma Shankar Prasad, (CIT DR)

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 801B(10)Section 801B(10)(c)

…ve already upheld the case of the assessee in T.C. Nos.1348 and 1349 of 2007 dated 10.10.2012 for grant of relief under Section 80IB(10) of the Act on a proportionate basis, by following the decision of the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Brahma Associates [2011] 333 ITR 289/197 Taxman 459 / 9 taxmann.com 289. Thus applying the decision of this Court in T.C. Nos.1348 and 1349 of 2007 dated 10.10.2012, we hold that the assessee is entitled to succeed both on the principle of proportionality as well as by reason of the construction on the meaning of the expression "housing project" as referring to construction of any b…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Shri Shamkant Keshav Kotkar, Pune

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 2422/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Oct 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Ch. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80Section 801Section 801B(10)Section 80I

…g project without a parking space and thus, the parking space becomes on integral part of the housing project. In support of our claim, we place reliance upon the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional Bombay High Court in case of M/s Bramha Associates ((2011) 333 ITR 289 (Bom)]. The court has observed as under ; The expression 'housing project' is not defined under the act. However, section 80IB(10) refers to the Housing Projects approved by the local authorities Therefore, for the purposes of section 80IB(10) which project should be treated as a housing is left to the local authorities. In the light of the ab…

M/S Sahara States, Bhopal vs. The DCIT 1(1), Bhopal

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 22/IND/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Sept 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani&

Section 143(3)Section 801B(10)Section 80I

…t 2019 in ITANo.13 of 2016 (Allahabad High Court) Page 4 of 17 ITANo.271/Ind/2011 & ITANo.22/Ind/2012 Sahara States c. CM/s ACE Multi Axes System Ltd vs The DCIT dated 28th July 2014 in ITA No.477/2013 (Karnataka High Court) d. CIT vs Bramha Associates - 333 ITR 289 (Bombay) 3.2 Placing reliance on the above judgment the Ld. AR has submitted that the Hon’ble High Court as well as Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the insertion of clause (d) in section 80IB(10) w.e.f 01.04.2005 is applicable prospectively and not retrospectively and therefore, cannot be applied to the projects commenced and sanctioned befo…

M/S Sahara States, Bhopal vs. The ACIT 1(1), Bhopal

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 271/IND/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Sept 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani&

Section 143(3)Section 801B(10)Section 80I

…t 2019 in ITANo.13 of 2016 (Allahabad High Court) Page 4 of 17 ITANo.271/Ind/2011 & ITANo.22/Ind/2012 Sahara States c. CM/s ACE Multi Axes System Ltd vs The DCIT dated 28th July 2014 in ITA No.477/2013 (Karnataka High Court) d. CIT vs Bramha Associates - 333 ITR 289 (Bombay) 3.2 Placing reliance on the above judgment the Ld. AR has submitted that the Hon’ble High Court as well as Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the insertion of clause (d) in section 80IB(10) w.e.f 01.04.2005 is applicable prospectively and not retrospectively and therefore, cannot be applied to the projects commenced and sanctioned befo…

DCIT 13(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Riva Resorts Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1343/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Riva Resorts Pvt. Ltd., – 13(3)(2), A 306, Radhakrishna Vs. Mumbai Apartments, Dahisar S.O., Mumbai – 400068 (Pan : Aadcr2341B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Ms. Gunjan Kakkad & Mr. Fenil Bhat, A.Rs

For Appellant: Ms. Gunjan Kakkad and Mr. Fenil Bhat, A.RsFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 801DSection 80I

…[2013] 214 taxman 524; ii) CIT v/s Arun Exelo Foundation Put. Ltd., [2013] 212 taxman 342 (Mad.); iii) ITO v/s Paras Builders, 69 SOT 82. Additionally, reference was made to their jurisdictional Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT v/s Bramha Associates, 333 ITR 289, where proportionate deduction was allowed even when certain conditions for claiming deduction under section 801B(10) of the Act were not fully met." 8.8 We have given thoughtful considerations to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and observe that the Ld. Commissioner not only thoroughly considered the parameters of section 80ID of…

Shri Abhay Dare, Bhopal vs. The ITO 1(1), Bhopal

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

ITA 832/IND/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Abhay Dare Ito-1(1) R-18, Gtb Complex Bhopal New Market, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Adqpd5119C Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2024

Section 801BSection 801B(10)Section 80I

…dras) 2) CIT v/s Sreevasta Real Estate Pvt Ltd (2014) 42 Taxmann .com 329 (Madras) 3) CIT v/s Arun Excelo Foundation Pvt Ltd (2013) 29 Taxmann.com149 (Madras) 4) GV Corporation v/s ITO Mumbai (2010) 38 SOT 174 (ITAT Mumbai) 5) CIT v/s Brahma Associates (2011) 197 Taxmann 459 (Bombay)” ISSUE-11- ASSESSEE IS A BUILDER OR CONTRACTOR. It is also important to note that the section 801B(10) of the Income Tax act 1961, nowhere provides any condition that at what level transfer to the customer should be registered or even it should be registered at all. What is required is the development of a housing project. Therefore,…

The ACIT, Central-2, Indore vs. M/S. Life Style Infratech Pvt. Ltd., Indore

ITA 291/IND/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80

…of the Act, we have already upheld the case of the assessee in T.C.Nos.1348 and 1349 of 2007 dated 10.10.2012 for grant of relief under Section 80IB(10) of the Act on a proportionate basis, by following the decision of the Bombay High Court reported in [2011] 333 ITR 289 (CIT Vs. Brahma Associates). Thus applying the decision of this Court in T.C.Nos.1348 and 1349 of 2007 dated 10.10.2012, we hold that the assessee is entitled to succeed both on the principle of proportionality as well as by reason of the construction on the meaning of the expression "housing project" as referring to construction of any building…

Om Sawmi Smaran Developers P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 8(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6916/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)

…cial pronouncements: i. Vishwas Promoters Private Limited vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. 214 Taxman 524 (Madras High Court); ii. CIT vs. Arun Excello Foundations (P) Ltd. 212 Taxman 296 (Gujarat High Court); iii. CIT vs. Brahma Associates 333 ITR 289 (Bombay High Court); iv. D.S. Kulkarni Developers Ltd. vs. ACIT (Pune ITAT) ITA Nos. 1428 & 1429/PN/2008; v. ITO vs. Air Developers (Nagpur ITAT) 25 DTR 287; vi. DCIT vs. Brigade Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (Banglore ITAT) 14 DTR 371; vii. ACIT vs. Sheth Developers P. Ltd. (Mumbai ITAT) 33 SOT 277; viii. Bengal Ambuja Housing Development Ltd. vs. DCIT…

Om Sawmi Smaran Developers P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 8(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6915/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)

…cial pronouncements: i. Vishwas Promoters Private Limited vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. 214 Taxman 524 (Madras High Court); ii. CIT vs. Arun Excello Foundations (P) Ltd. 212 Taxman 296 (Gujarat High Court); iii. CIT vs. Brahma Associates 333 ITR 289 (Bombay High Court); iv. D.S. Kulkarni Developers Ltd. vs. ACIT (Pune ITAT) ITA Nos. 1428 & 1429/PN/2008; v. ITO vs. Air Developers (Nagpur ITAT) 25 DTR 287; vi. DCIT vs. Brigade Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (Banglore ITAT) 14 DTR 371; vii. ACIT vs. Sheth Developers P. Ltd. (Mumbai ITAT) 33 SOT 277; viii. Bengal Ambuja Housing Development Ltd. vs. DCIT…

ITO 17(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Poddar Ashish Developrs, Mumbai

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

ITA 2337/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri B. N. RaoFor Respondent: 08.12.2022

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80Section 80I

…hat the assessee has not complied with one of the vital condition of section 80IB(10) and rejected the deduction claimed by the assessee. The A.O. placed his reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v/s Brahma Associates (2011) 333 ITR 289 (Bom). Further to this, it is also observed that the assessee has sold 7 flats out of the closing stock and has declared profit of Rs.4,11,30,505/-. The approval was obtained on 12.01.2004, the commencement certificate dated 16.12.2004 and the occupation certificate dated 08.12.2008 in respect of ‘A’ wing and 30.03.2009 in respect of ‘B’ wing.…

ITO-17(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Poddar Ashish Developers, Mumbai

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

ITA 2336/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri B. N. RaoFor Respondent: 08.12.2022

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80Section 80I

…hat the assessee has not complied with one of the vital condition of section 80IB(10) and rejected the deduction claimed by the assessee. The A.O. placed his reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v/s Brahma Associates (2011) 333 ITR 289 (Bom). Further to this, it is also observed that the assessee has sold 7 flats out of the closing stock and has declared profit of Rs.4,11,30,505/-. The approval was obtained on 12.01.2004, the commencement certificate dated 16.12.2004 and the occupation certificate dated 08.12.2008 in respect of ‘A’ wing and 30.03.2009 in respect of ‘B’ wing.…

ITO 17(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Poddar Ashish Developrs, Mumbai

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

ITA 2335/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri B. N. RaoFor Respondent: 08.12.2022

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80Section 80I

…hat the assessee has not complied with one of the vital condition of section 80IB(10) and rejected the deduction claimed by the assessee. The A.O. placed his reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v/s Brahma Associates (2011) 333 ITR 289 (Bom). Further to this, it is also observed that the assessee has sold 7 flats out of the closing stock and has declared profit of Rs.4,11,30,505/-. The approval was obtained on 12.01.2004, the commencement certificate dated 16.12.2004 and the occupation certificate dated 08.12.2008 in respect of ‘A’ wing and 30.03.2009 in respect of ‘B’ wing.…

Asst CIT 28(1), Navi Mumbai vs. Bharat Tukaram Bhor, Navi Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 897/MUM/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 895/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Bharat Tukaram Bhor Acit–28(1), बिधम/ 218/219, Raheja Arcade, R. No. 306, 3Rd Floor, 6Th Sector- 11, Cbd Belapur, Tower, Vashi Rly Station Vs. Navi Mumbai- 400 614 Complex, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 703 (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 288/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ito 28(1)(2), Bharat Tukaram Bhor Pro. M/S Jai Gurudeo Bldr Tower No. 6 Flr Vashi Rly बिधम/ & Developers, 218/219, Station Complex, Navi Vs. Raheja Arcade, Sector-11, Mumbai- 400 703 Cbd Belapur, Navi Mumbai- 400 614 (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 287/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Bharat Tukaram Bhor Addlcit Rg 22(3), Pro. M/S Jai Gurudeo Bldr Tower No. 6, 3Rd Flr Vashi बिधम/ & Developers, 218/219, Rly Station Complex, Vashi, Vs. Raheja Arcade, Sector-11, Navi Mumbai-400 703 Cbd Belapur, Navi Mumbai- 400 614 (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 80I

…ssessee to avail proportionate deduction u/s 80IB(10). On satisfying the conditions, the assessee is either eligible for 100% deduction or ineligible for 100% deduction of profits as held by Bombay High Court in the case of M/s Brahma Associates vs CIT (2011) 333 ITR 289”? (3) “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to allow deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act, fully in respect of residential units of A& B Wings of housing project and on pro-rata basis in respect of C Wing without appreciating the fact that plain reading of the section 80IB(…

Asst CIT 28(1), Navi Mumbai vs. Bharat Tukaram Bhor, Navi Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 896/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 895/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Bharat Tukaram Bhor Acit–28(1), बिधम/ 218/219, Raheja Arcade, R. No. 306, 3Rd Floor, 6Th Sector- 11, Cbd Belapur, Tower, Vashi Rly Station Vs. Navi Mumbai- 400 614 Complex, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 703 (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 288/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ito 28(1)(2), Bharat Tukaram Bhor Pro. M/S Jai Gurudeo Bldr Tower No. 6 Flr Vashi Rly बिधम/ & Developers, 218/219, Station Complex, Navi Vs. Raheja Arcade, Sector-11, Mumbai- 400 703 Cbd Belapur, Navi Mumbai- 400 614 (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 287/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Bharat Tukaram Bhor Addlcit Rg 22(3), Pro. M/S Jai Gurudeo Bldr Tower No. 6, 3Rd Flr Vashi बिधम/ & Developers, 218/219, Rly Station Complex, Vashi, Vs. Raheja Arcade, Sector-11, Navi Mumbai-400 703 Cbd Belapur, Navi Mumbai- 400 614 (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 80I

…ssessee to avail proportionate deduction u/s 80IB(10). On satisfying the conditions, the assessee is either eligible for 100% deduction or ineligible for 100% deduction of profits as held by Bombay High Court in the case of M/s Brahma Associates vs CIT (2011) 333 ITR 289”? (3) “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to allow deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act, fully in respect of residential units of A& B Wings of housing project and on pro-rata basis in respect of C Wing without appreciating the fact that plain reading of the section 80IB(…

Asst CIT 28(1), Navi Mumbai vs. Bharat Tukaram Bhor, Navi Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 895/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 895/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Bharat Tukaram Bhor Acit–28(1), बिधम/ 218/219, Raheja Arcade, R. No. 306, 3Rd Floor, 6Th Sector- 11, Cbd Belapur, Tower, Vashi Rly Station Vs. Navi Mumbai- 400 614 Complex, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 703 (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 288/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ito 28(1)(2), Bharat Tukaram Bhor Pro. M/S Jai Gurudeo Bldr Tower No. 6 Flr Vashi Rly बिधम/ & Developers, 218/219, Station Complex, Navi Vs. Raheja Arcade, Sector-11, Mumbai- 400 703 Cbd Belapur, Navi Mumbai- 400 614 (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 287/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Bharat Tukaram Bhor Addlcit Rg 22(3), Pro. M/S Jai Gurudeo Bldr Tower No. 6, 3Rd Flr Vashi बिधम/ & Developers, 218/219, Rly Station Complex, Vashi, Vs. Raheja Arcade, Sector-11, Navi Mumbai-400 703 Cbd Belapur, Navi Mumbai- 400 614 (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 80I

…ssessee to avail proportionate deduction u/s 80IB(10). On satisfying the conditions, the assessee is either eligible for 100% deduction or ineligible for 100% deduction of profits as held by Bombay High Court in the case of M/s Brahma Associates vs CIT (2011) 333 ITR 289”? (3) “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to allow deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act, fully in respect of residential units of A& B Wings of housing project and on pro-rata basis in respect of C Wing without appreciating the fact that plain reading of the section 80IB(…

Bharat Tularam Bhoir, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT 28 (1), Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 289/MUM/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 895/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Bharat Tukaram Bhor Acit–28(1), बिधम/ 218/219, Raheja Arcade, R. No. 306, 3Rd Floor, 6Th Sector- 11, Cbd Belapur, Tower, Vashi Rly Station Vs. Navi Mumbai- 400 614 Complex, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 703 (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 288/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ito 28(1)(2), Bharat Tukaram Bhor Pro. M/S Jai Gurudeo Bldr Tower No. 6 Flr Vashi Rly बिधम/ & Developers, 218/219, Station Complex, Navi Vs. Raheja Arcade, Sector-11, Mumbai- 400 703 Cbd Belapur, Navi Mumbai- 400 614 (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 287/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Bharat Tukaram Bhor Addlcit Rg 22(3), Pro. M/S Jai Gurudeo Bldr Tower No. 6, 3Rd Flr Vashi बिधम/ & Developers, 218/219, Rly Station Complex, Vashi, Vs. Raheja Arcade, Sector-11, Navi Mumbai-400 703 Cbd Belapur, Navi Mumbai- 400 614 (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 80I

…ssessee to avail proportionate deduction u/s 80IB(10). On satisfying the conditions, the assessee is either eligible for 100% deduction or ineligible for 100% deduction of profits as held by Bombay High Court in the case of M/s Brahma Associates vs CIT (2011) 333 ITR 289”? (3) “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to allow deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act, fully in respect of residential units of A& B Wings of housing project and on pro-rata basis in respect of C Wing without appreciating the fact that plain reading of the section 80IB(…

Bharat Tukaram Bhoir, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO 28 (1)92), Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 288/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 895/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Bharat Tukaram Bhor Acit–28(1), बिधम/ 218/219, Raheja Arcade, R. No. 306, 3Rd Floor, 6Th Sector- 11, Cbd Belapur, Tower, Vashi Rly Station Vs. Navi Mumbai- 400 614 Complex, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 703 (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 288/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ito 28(1)(2), Bharat Tukaram Bhor Pro. M/S Jai Gurudeo Bldr Tower No. 6 Flr Vashi Rly बिधम/ & Developers, 218/219, Station Complex, Navi Vs. Raheja Arcade, Sector-11, Mumbai- 400 703 Cbd Belapur, Navi Mumbai- 400 614 (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 287/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Bharat Tukaram Bhor Addlcit Rg 22(3), Pro. M/S Jai Gurudeo Bldr Tower No. 6, 3Rd Flr Vashi बिधम/ & Developers, 218/219, Rly Station Complex, Vashi, Vs. Raheja Arcade, Sector-11, Navi Mumbai-400 703 Cbd Belapur, Navi Mumbai- 400 614 (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 80I

…ssessee to avail proportionate deduction u/s 80IB(10). On satisfying the conditions, the assessee is either eligible for 100% deduction or ineligible for 100% deduction of profits as held by Bombay High Court in the case of M/s Brahma Associates vs CIT (2011) 333 ITR 289”? (3) “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to allow deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act, fully in respect of residential units of A& B Wings of housing project and on pro-rata basis in respect of C Wing without appreciating the fact that plain reading of the section 80IB(…

Bharat Tukaram Bhoir, Mumbai vs. Addlcit RG 22 (3), Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 287/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 895/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Bharat Tukaram Bhor Acit–28(1), बिधम/ 218/219, Raheja Arcade, R. No. 306, 3Rd Floor, 6Th Sector- 11, Cbd Belapur, Tower, Vashi Rly Station Vs. Navi Mumbai- 400 614 Complex, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 703 (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 288/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ito 28(1)(2), Bharat Tukaram Bhor Pro. M/S Jai Gurudeo Bldr Tower No. 6 Flr Vashi Rly बिधम/ & Developers, 218/219, Station Complex, Navi Vs. Raheja Arcade, Sector-11, Mumbai- 400 703 Cbd Belapur, Navi Mumbai- 400 614 (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 287/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Bharat Tukaram Bhor Addlcit Rg 22(3), Pro. M/S Jai Gurudeo Bldr Tower No. 6, 3Rd Flr Vashi बिधम/ & Developers, 218/219, Rly Station Complex, Vashi, Vs. Raheja Arcade, Sector-11, Navi Mumbai-400 703 Cbd Belapur, Navi Mumbai- 400 614 (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 80I

…ssessee to avail proportionate deduction u/s 80IB(10). On satisfying the conditions, the assessee is either eligible for 100% deduction or ineligible for 100% deduction of profits as held by Bombay High Court in the case of M/s Brahma Associates vs CIT (2011) 333 ITR 289”? (3) “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to allow deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act, fully in respect of residential units of A& B Wings of housing project and on pro-rata basis in respect of C Wing without appreciating the fact that plain reading of the section 80IB(…

DCIT, Circle-3, Jaipur vs. M/S. Joy Syndicate & Enclave Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

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

ITA 102/JPR/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani ( C.A.)For Respondent: Ms Runi Pal (Addl. CIT)a fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 14ASection 801Section 80I

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR MkWa- ,l-lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 102/JP/2020 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2013-14 cuke The DCIT, M/s Joy Syndicate & Enclave Pvt. Ltd. Circle-3, Vs. G-10-11, Royal World, S.C. Road, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAACE5910E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Ms Runi Pal (Addl. CIT)a fu/kZkfjrh dh vks…

CIT v. Brahma Associates

What is CIT v. Brahma Associates authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Brahma Associates

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Bombay Slum Redevelopment Corporation Private Limited, Mumbai

Avinash S Sadamate, ACIT, Circle 3 3 1 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Rashmi Infrastructure Developers Limited, Mumbai

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Shri Shamkant Keshav Kotkar, Pune

M/S Sahara States, Bhopal vs. The DCIT 1(1), Bhopal

M/S Sahara States, Bhopal vs. The ACIT 1(1), Bhopal

DCIT 13(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Riva Resorts Private Limited, Mumbai

Shri Abhay Dare, Bhopal vs. The ITO 1(1), Bhopal

The ACIT, Central-2, Indore vs. M/S. Life Style Infratech Pvt. Ltd., Indore

Om Sawmi Smaran Developers P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 8(2)(4), Mumbai

Om Sawmi Smaran Developers P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 8(2)(4), Mumbai

ITO 17(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Poddar Ashish Developrs, Mumbai

ITO-17(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Poddar Ashish Developers, Mumbai

ITO 17(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Poddar Ashish Developrs, Mumbai

Asst CIT 28(1), Navi Mumbai vs. Bharat Tukaram Bhor, Navi Mumbai

Asst CIT 28(1), Navi Mumbai vs. Bharat Tukaram Bhor, Navi Mumbai

Asst CIT 28(1), Navi Mumbai vs. Bharat Tukaram Bhor, Navi Mumbai

Bharat Tularam Bhoir, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT 28 (1), Mumbai

Bharat Tukaram Bhoir, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO 28 (1)92), Mumbai

Bharat Tukaram Bhoir, Mumbai vs. Addlcit RG 22 (3), Mumbai

DCIT, Circle-3, Jaipur vs. M/S. Joy Syndicate & Enclave Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur