CIT v. Brahma Associates

333 ITR 289High Court2011#1171 most cited

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.

97

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2014 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Brahma Associates · Brahma Associates · Section 80IB(10) · proportionate deduction · housing project deduction · built-up area limits · Section 80IB(10)(d) prospective application · project completion condition · commercial area limit

Also reported as

197 Taxmann 4599 Taxmann.com 289

Sections most often in play

Section 80IB(10)Section 144Section 147Section 80IBSection 80IB(10)(d)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

Issues it is cited on

section 80ib(10)section 80ibsection 80itax benefitsection 80prescribedsection 11section 143(3)companysection 143total incomeappeal before the tribunal

Judgments citing CIT v. Brahma Associates

ACIT, Circle-5(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. West Wing Infra Projects., Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2125/AHD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Waseem Ahmed & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2012-13 Acit, Cir.5(2) M/S.West Wing Infra Projects Ahmedabad. Vs 1, Dhaval Society, Part-I Opp: St. Zaviers School Navrangpura Ahmedabad. Pan : Aaafw 7956 P अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rupesh Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Urjit Shah, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 15/02/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/02/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per T.R. Senthil Kumar: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against Order Dated 16.07.2018 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-5/Ito, Wd.5(2)(4)/135/2015-16 Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-5, Ahmedabad [For Short “Ld.Cit(A)] Relating To The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Sole Issue Raised By The Revenue Is That The Ld.Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Restricting Addition At Rs.1,81,06,445/- Made U/S.80Ib(10) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To The Act] To Rs.11,83,663/-. 2

For Appellant: Shri Rupesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Urjit Shah, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 801B(10)Section 80I

…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 bu…

M/S Agarwal Construction Company, Bhopal vs. Dypti Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central), Bhopal

ITA 596/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Mis Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing It(Ss)A Nos.233 To 238/Ind/2017 Assessment Year:2006-07 To 2011-12 M/S. Agrawal Construction Co. Acit, 1(1) बनाम/ Bhopal Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) Vs. P.A. No.Aaefa8225H It(Ss)A No.224 To 226/Ind/2017 Assessment Year:2009-10 To 2011-12 Acit, 1(1) M/S. Agrawal Construction बनाम/ Bhopal Co. Bhopal Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaefa8225H Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 3Section 801Section 80I

…ousing projects approved after Ist April, 2005. This is notwithstanding the fact that the profits were offered to tax by the assessee for the asst. yr 2005-06 or thereafter – CIT vs. Brahma Associates (2011) 239 CTR (Bom) 30 : (2011) 51 DTR (Bom) 298 : 92011) 333 ITR 289 (Bom) and CIT vs. G.R. Developers (2013) 353 ITR 1 (Kar) relied on; Manan Corporation vs. Asstt. CIT (2013) 255 CTR (Guj) 415 : (2012) 78 DTR (Guj) 205 : (2013) 356 ITR 44 (Guj) concurred with :Reliance Jute & Industries Ltd. vs. CIT (1979) 13 CTR (SC) 186 : (1979) 120 ITR 921 (SC) and Securities & Exchange Board of India vs. Ajay Agarwal AIR 201…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-II, Bhopal vs. M/S Agrawal Construction Co., Bhopal

ITA 590/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Mis Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing It(Ss)A Nos.233 To 238/Ind/2017 Assessment Year:2006-07 To 2011-12 M/S. Agrawal Construction Co. Acit, 1(1) बनाम/ Bhopal Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) Vs. P.A. No.Aaefa8225H It(Ss)A No.224 To 226/Ind/2017 Assessment Year:2009-10 To 2011-12 Acit, 1(1) M/S. Agrawal Construction बनाम/ Bhopal Co. Bhopal Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaefa8225H Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 3Section 801Section 80I

…ousing projects approved after Ist April, 2005. This is notwithstanding the fact that the profits were offered to tax by the assessee for the asst. yr 2005-06 or thereafter – CIT vs. Brahma Associates (2011) 239 CTR (Bom) 30 : (2011) 51 DTR (Bom) 298 : 92011) 333 ITR 289 (Bom) and CIT vs. G.R. Developers (2013) 353 ITR 1 (Kar) relied on; Manan Corporation vs. Asstt. CIT (2013) 255 CTR (Guj) 415 : (2012) 78 DTR (Guj) 205 : (2013) 356 ITR 44 (Guj) concurred with :Reliance Jute & Industries Ltd. vs. CIT (1979) 13 CTR (SC) 186 : (1979) 120 ITR 921 (SC) and Securities & Exchange Board of India vs. Ajay Agarwal AIR 201…

ITO - 28(2)(1), Navi Mumbai vs. M/S. Kamdhenu Builders &Developers, Navi Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7943/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Ravish Sood, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer – 28(2)(1) V. M/S. Kamdhenu Builders & Developers 3Rd Floor, Room No. 326 20, 2Nd Floor, Shanti Centre, Sector-17 Tower No.6 Vashi, Navi Mumbai- 400705 Vashi Railway Station Building Complex Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400703 Pan: Aahfk0461E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi Department By : Shri K. Shiddaramappa

For Appellant: Shri Subodh RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: Shri K. Shiddaramappa
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…ssessee to avail proportionate deduction u/s 80IB(10). On satisfying the conditions, the asesssee 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”? (4) “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred directing the A.O. to allow deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act without appreciating the fact that the transfer of commercial portion of project to M/s Pyramid Developers was an illegal transfer as consent of the CIDCO was not taken by the assessee…

Manjeera Projects, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-11(1), Hyderabad

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

ITA 15/HYD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Sri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, DR
Section 143(3)Section 5Section 80I

…ITA Nos 956 and others Manjeera Projects Hyderabad. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad (Through Video Conferencing) Before Shri S.S. Godara, Judicial Member AND Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member ITA Nos. 1554, 956/Hyd/2018, 1599/Hyd/2019 & 15/Hyd/2020 Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2016-17 Manjeera Projects Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Hyderabad Income Tax, Circle 6(1) PAN:AAOFM0872C Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Sri K.C. Devdas Revenue by: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, DR Date of hearing: 26/08/2021 Date of pronouncement: 08/09/2021 ORDER Per S. S. Godara, J.…

Manjeera Projects, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

ITA 956/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Sri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, DR
Section 143(3)Section 5Section 80I

…ITA Nos 956 and others Manjeera Projects Hyderabad. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad (Through Video Conferencing) Before Shri S.S. Godara, Judicial Member AND Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member ITA Nos. 1554, 956/Hyd/2018, 1599/Hyd/2019 & 15/Hyd/2020 Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2016-17 Manjeera Projects Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Hyderabad Income Tax, Circle 6(1) PAN:AAOFM0872C Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Sri K.C. Devdas Revenue by: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, DR Date of hearing: 26/08/2021 Date of pronouncement: 08/09/2021 ORDER Per S. S. Godara, J.…

Manjeera Projects, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

ITA 1554/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Sri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, DR
Section 143(3)Section 5Section 80I

…ITA Nos 956 and others Manjeera Projects Hyderabad. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad (Through Video Conferencing) Before Shri S.S. Godara, Judicial Member AND Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member ITA Nos. 1554, 956/Hyd/2018, 1599/Hyd/2019 & 15/Hyd/2020 Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2016-17 Manjeera Projects Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Hyderabad Income Tax, Circle 6(1) PAN:AAOFM0872C Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Sri K.C. Devdas Revenue by: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, DR Date of hearing: 26/08/2021 Date of pronouncement: 08/09/2021 ORDER Per S. S. Godara, J.…

DCIT- Circle - 3, Mumbai vs. Omkar Builders and Developers, Thane

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 248/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.248/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Dcit Circle-3, Thane बिधम/ M/S. Omkar Builders & Room No.02, 6Th Floor, Developers Vs. Aashar It Park, B-Wing, A-1/54, Shah & Nahar Wagle Industrial Estate, Industrial Estate Sitaram Road No.16Z, Thane (W- Jadhav Marg, Lower Parel 400604. (W), Mumbai-400013. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabfo3908J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Jitendra Singh (Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21/01/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/02/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 08.10.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -02, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2014- 15. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Singh (AR)For Respondent: Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 801Section 801BSection 80I

…ns of section 80IB(10) cannot be disallowed. The disallowance, if any, has to be restricted to the flats which violate the conditions of section 80IB(10). The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT v. Brahma Associates[2011] 197 Taxman 459/9 taxmann.com 289/333 ITR 289 (Bom.), has held that deduction under section 80IB(10) can be allowed on proportionate basis in respect of flats which fulfilled the conditions of section 80IB(10). The same view was expressed by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the decisions cited by the learned Authorised Representative. In our view, the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decisio…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Tvh Ekanta, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2011-

ITA 607/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sailendra Mamidi, PCIT
Section 10Section 80Section 80I

…Pradesh High Court in the case of Chairman, Andhra Pradesh Welfare Board Vs. CIT reported in 12 Taxman 242 (AP) and denied deduction u/s.80-IB(10) entirely. 2.3 It is submitted that the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Brahma Associates [2011] 9 Taxmann.com 289 on proportionate disallowance has not been accepted by the Revenue and taken up before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of SLP. 2.4 The ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the benefit of deduction is extended to the residential project and not to the individual residential flats comprised in it. Therefore, when the project violates the con…

Tvh Ekanta, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2011-

ITA 588/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sailendra Mamidi, PCIT
Section 10Section 80Section 80I

…Pradesh High Court in the case of Chairman, Andhra Pradesh Welfare Board Vs. CIT reported in 12 Taxman 242 (AP) and denied deduction u/s.80-IB(10) entirely. 2.3 It is submitted that the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Brahma Associates [2011] 9 Taxmann.com 289 on proportionate disallowance has not been accepted by the Revenue and taken up before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of SLP. 2.4 The ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the benefit of deduction is extended to the residential project and not to the individual residential flats comprised in it. Therefore, when the project violates the con…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Tvh Ekanta, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2011-

ITA 3422/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sailendra Mamidi, PCIT
Section 10Section 80Section 80I

…Pradesh High Court in the case of Chairman, Andhra Pradesh Welfare Board Vs. CIT reported in 12 Taxman 242 (AP) and denied deduction u/s.80-IB(10) entirely. 2.3 It is submitted that the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Brahma Associates [2011] 9 Taxmann.com 289 on proportionate disallowance has not been accepted by the Revenue and taken up before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of SLP. 2.4 The ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the benefit of deduction is extended to the residential project and not to the individual residential flats comprised in it. Therefore, when the project violates the con…

Vikram Developers & Promoters, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2796/PUN/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2795 & 2796/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Vikram Developers & Promoters, 19, Shrikrishna Heights, Ganeshkhind Road, Shivaji Nagar, Pune-411005. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aagfv4298R बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Central Circle-2(1), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Kishor Phadke Revenue By : Shri Milind Chahure सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 14.11.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: There Are Two Appeals Under Consideration Filed By The Assessee Against The Common Orders Of The Cit(A)-12, Pune Dated 08.09.2016 For The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively. Preliminary Issue - Condonation Of Delay – Both Appeals 2. Before Us, At The Outset, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Both The Appeals Could Not Be Filed In Time & The Said Appeals Were Filed With The Delay Of 01 Day. In This Regard, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Delay Is Unintentional & Prayed For Condoning The Same. 3. After Hearing Both The Sides & Considering The Smallness Of Delay In Filing Of Both The Appeals, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeals Of The Assessee In The Following Paragraphs. 4. The Facts & Grounds Are Common In Both The Appeals, Therefore, Both The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Composite Order. Accordingly, The Appeal-Wise Adjudication Is Taken Up In The Following Paragraphs.

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chahure
Section 132Section 68Section 80I

…ospective application of amended provisions, ld. Counsel for the assessee relied on the binding judgements in the case of (i) CIT vs. Sarkar Builders, 375 ITR 392 (SC); (ii) CIT vs. Vatika Township (P.) Ltd., 367 ITR 466 (SC); (iii) CIT vs. Brahma Associates, 333 ITR 289 (Bom-HC); and, (iv) Anil Kumar Gopikishan Agrawal vs. ACIT, 106 taxmann.com 137 (Guj-HC). These decisions were pronounced in the context of section 80IB(10) of the Act and the amendment to section 113 and section 153B etc of the Act. 42. Thus, the date & year of approval of the project become relevant to not only to the projects of section 80IB(1…

M/S. Vikram Developers & Promoters, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2795/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2795 & 2796/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Vikram Developers & Promoters, 19, Shrikrishna Heights, Ganeshkhind Road, Shivaji Nagar, Pune-411005. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aagfv4298R बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Central Circle-2(1), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Kishor Phadke Revenue By : Shri Milind Chahure सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 14.11.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: There Are Two Appeals Under Consideration Filed By The Assessee Against The Common Orders Of The Cit(A)-12, Pune Dated 08.09.2016 For The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively. Preliminary Issue - Condonation Of Delay – Both Appeals 2. Before Us, At The Outset, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Both The Appeals Could Not Be Filed In Time & The Said Appeals Were Filed With The Delay Of 01 Day. In This Regard, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Delay Is Unintentional & Prayed For Condoning The Same. 3. After Hearing Both The Sides & Considering The Smallness Of Delay In Filing Of Both The Appeals, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeals Of The Assessee In The Following Paragraphs. 4. The Facts & Grounds Are Common In Both The Appeals, Therefore, Both The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Composite Order. Accordingly, The Appeal-Wise Adjudication Is Taken Up In The Following Paragraphs.

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chahure
Section 132Section 68Section 80I

…ospective application of amended provisions, ld. Counsel for the assessee relied on the binding judgements in the case of (i) CIT vs. Sarkar Builders, 375 ITR 392 (SC); (ii) CIT vs. Vatika Township (P.) Ltd., 367 ITR 466 (SC); (iii) CIT vs. Brahma Associates, 333 ITR 289 (Bom-HC); and, (iv) Anil Kumar Gopikishan Agrawal vs. ACIT, 106 taxmann.com 137 (Guj-HC). These decisions were pronounced in the context of section 80IB(10) of the Act and the amendment to section 113 and section 153B etc of the Act. 42. Thus, the date & year of approval of the project become relevant to not only to the projects of section 80IB(1…

Grandeur Homes Pvt. Ltd., Secunderabad, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad

In the result, assessee’s appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 479/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmangrandeur Homes P Ltd Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Secunderabad Income Tax, Circle 2(2) Pan: Aaccg7612F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Shri K.J. Rao, DR
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…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…

ACIT 24(1), Mumbai vs. Chamunda Builders & Developers, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2390/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhacit-24(1), M/S Chamunda Builders & R.No. 604, 6Th Floor, Developers, 111, Chamunda Piramal Chamber, Parel, Heritage, Behind Jivan Vikash Mumbai-400012. Hospital, Jijamata Road Vs. Koldongri, Andheri East, Mumbai-400069. Pan: Aaafc4837H Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Pramod Nikalje (Dr) Respondent By : Shri Bhupendra Shah (Ar) Date Of Hearing : 23.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.04.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh; 1. This Appeal By Revenue Under Section 253 Of Income-Tax Act (‘Act’) Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Nikalje (DR)For Respondent: Shri Bhupendra Shah (AR)
Section 253Section 254(1)Section 80I

…herwise are complying to the conditions of section 80IB(10) cannot be disallowed. The disallowance, if any, has to be restricted to the flats which violate the conditions of section 80IB(10). The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT v/s Bramha Associates, 333 ITR 289, has held that deduction under section 80IB(10) can be allowed on proportionate basis in respect of flats which fulfilled the conditions of section 80IB(10). The same view was expressed by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the decisions cited by the learned Authorised Representative. In our view, the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decisions, M/s…

DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad vs. Janapriya Engineers Syndicate Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 216/HYD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

For Appellant: Shri A. SrinivasFor Respondent: Smt. S. Narasamma
Section 40

…for grant of relief under Section 17 I.T.A. No. 1139/Hyd/17 and others Janapriya Engineers Syndicate Ltd., Hyd and others 80IB(10) of the Act on a proportionate basis, by following the decision of the Bombay High Court reported in ITA No.2004/PN/2014 [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…

DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad vs. Janapriya Engineers Syndicate Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 215/HYD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jan 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

For Appellant: Shri A. SrinivasFor Respondent: Smt. S. Narasamma
Section 40

…for grant of relief under Section 17 I.T.A. No. 1139/Hyd/17 and others Janapriya Engineers Syndicate Ltd., Hyd and others 80IB(10) of the Act on a proportionate basis, by following the decision of the Bombay High Court reported in ITA No.2004/PN/2014 [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…

Janapriya Engineers Syndicate Limited (Formerly Known As Janapriya Engineers Syndicate Pvt. Ltd.), Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1140/HYD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

For Appellant: Shri A. SrinivasFor Respondent: Smt. S. Narasamma
Section 40

…for grant of relief under Section 17 I.T.A. No. 1139/Hyd/17 and others Janapriya Engineers Syndicate Ltd., Hyd and others 80IB(10) of the Act on a proportionate basis, by following the decision of the Bombay High Court reported in ITA No.2004/PN/2014 [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…

Janapriya Engineers Syndicate Limited (Formerly Known As Janapriya Engineers Syndicate Pvt. Ltd.), Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1139/HYD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jan 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

For Appellant: Shri A. SrinivasFor Respondent: Smt. S. Narasamma
Section 40

…for grant of relief under Section 17 I.T.A. No. 1139/Hyd/17 and others Janapriya Engineers Syndicate Ltd., Hyd and others 80IB(10) of the Act on a proportionate basis, by following the decision of the Bombay High Court reported in ITA No.2004/PN/2014 [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…

The DCIT, Central Circle - 2, Hyderabad vs. M/S. Engineers Reddy P. Ltd, Hyderabad

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1485/HYD/2010[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

For Appellant: Shri A. SrinivasFor Respondent: Smt. S. Narasamma
Section 40

…for grant of relief under Section 17 I.T.A. No. 1139/Hyd/17 and others Janapriya Engineers Syndicate Ltd., Hyd and others 80IB(10) of the Act on a proportionate basis, by following the decision of the Bombay High Court reported in ITA No.2004/PN/2014 [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…