CIT v. Brahma Associates

ITO Cen ( Thane), Thane vs. Ramprasad Agarwal, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and both the cross appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2008-2009

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R.BASKARAN (AM) AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM) Assessment Year: 2008-2009 Shri. Ramprasad Agarwal, The CIT(Appeals)-I, Gr. Flr., Vrindavan, Vardaan, 9th Floor, MIDC, Salasar Brijbhoomi, Wagle Industrial Estate, Temba Hospital Road, Vs. Thane. Bhayander(W), Thane- 401101. PAN: AAOPA2405P (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No 1108 & 1773/MUM/2013 Assessment Year: 2008-2009 & 2009-10 The ITO Wd. 2(2), Shri. Ramprasad Agarwal, Room No. 26/B, Ashar IT Park, Gr. Flr., Vrindavan, Road No. 16Z, Wagle Estate, Salasar Brijbhoomi, Thane- 400604. Vs. Tem…

ACIT, Cent. Cir.2, Thane vs. Sai Home Makers, Navi Mumbai

In the result, assessee‟s appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

…arking, club house, etc., which are available exclusively to occupants of residential units. The first appellate authority also noted that as per the judicial pronouncements of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT v/s Bramha Associates, [2011] 333 ITR 289 (Bom.) as well as the decision of the Tribunal wherein it was decided that deduction under section 80IB(10) cannot be denied when there are two distinct and separate projects within a larger project and such project fulfilled the conditions of section 80IB. Thus, on the basis of material brought on record, learned Commissioner (Appeals) held that…

Neelkanth Palm Realty, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 15(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Sanjay Aroraassessment Year:2008-09 M/S Neelkanth Palm Addl.Cit, Realty Fine House, Range-(15)(3), Anandji Lane, 5Th Floor, Matru Mandir, M.G. Road, Ghatkopar (E), Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400077 Mumbai ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaefn5224B

…ted at Mumbai, subject of- course to the fulfillment of the other conditions for deduction there-under. The issue stands decided by the Tribunal in the assessee’s case for A.Y. 2007-08 by relying on the decision in the case of CIT vs. Brahma Associates [2011] 333 ITR 289 (Bom) and Viswas Promoters (P) Ltd. [2013] 29 taxmann.com 19 (Mad), advocating such proportionate deduction. However, as clarified by the Bench during hearing, the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court has in Brahma Associates (supra) clearly held to the contrary, as noted by the tribunal in inter alia Asst. CIT vs. Ekta Sankalp Developers [2015] 152…

ITO 15(3)(2), Mumbai vs. U.K. Construcitons, Mumbai

In the result both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12

…project constructed by the appellant is in 10 U.K. Construction excess of 2000 sq.ft., no adverse view on the issue can be taken. 9.7. Further, in view of the judicial pronouncement of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs Brahma Associates 333 ITR 289 (2011) (Born), wherein on the issue of the commercial area, it has been held that – " If the conditions set out in section 8018(10) are satisfied, then deduction is allowable on the entire project approved by the local authority and there is no question of allowing deduction to a part of the project. In the present case, the commercial user is al…

ITO 15(3)(2), Mumbai vs. U.K. Construciton, Mumbai

In the result both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12

…project constructed by the appellant is in 10 U.K. Construction excess of 2000 sq.ft., no adverse view on the issue can be taken. 9.7. Further, in view of the judicial pronouncement of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs Brahma Associates 333 ITR 289 (2011) (Born), wherein on the issue of the commercial area, it has been held that – " If the conditions set out in section 8018(10) are satisfied, then deduction is allowable on the entire project approved by the local authority and there is no question of allowing deduction to a part of the project. In the present case, the commercial user is al…

ITO 19(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Sagar Shopping Developers, Mumbai

…deduction u/s. 80IB(10) of the Act. 3.During the course of hearing before us, the Departmental Representative (DR) relied upon the order of the AO. The Authorised Representative (AR) relied upon the cases of Veena Developers (377 ITR 297), Brahma Associates (333 ITR 289), Happy Home Enterprises (372 ITR 1) and Sarkar Builders (370 ITR 392. 4.We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We find that the project was approved as housing project by the local authorities, that the clause (d) was inserted with effect from 1.4.2005, that the Courts have held that it was not retrospective in n…

ITO WD 1(2), Kalyan vs. Kantilal Dhanraj Jain (HUF), Bhiwandi

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2743/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Income Tax Officer, Kantilal Dhanraj Jain (Huf) बनाम/ Ward 1(2), Kalyan, 1St Floor, H. No. 64/2, 1St Floor, Mohan Plaza, Wayale Nagar, Malani Bhuwan, Prabhu Ali, Vs. Khadakpada, Kalyan Mandai, Bhiwandi – 421 302 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabhj 8351 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri B. S. Bist ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Sejal Lalit Jain सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 16.11.2015 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 27.11.2015 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Revenue Arising Out Of The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Thane (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 16.01.2014, Partly Allowing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting Its Assessment U/S.143(3) R/W S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2006-07 Vide Order Dated 30.12.2010. 2. The Only Issue Arising Per The Instant Appeal Is The Validity Of The Deletion Of The Disallowance Of The Assessee’S, A Huf In The Business Of Property Development, Claim

…of proportionate deduction stands approved by the tribunal vide its order in Asst. CIT vs. Ekta Sankalp Developers [2015] 53 taxmann.com 75 (Mum-Trib), considering also the decision by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Brahma Associates [2011] 197 Taxmann 459 (Bom). Under the circumstances, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order, which stands affirmed. I decide accordingly. 5. In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. प"रणामतः राज"व क" अपील खा"रज क" जाती है । Order pronounced in the open court on November 27, 2015 (Sanjay Arora) लेखा सद"य / Accountant Member मुंबई Mumbai;…

ITO 21(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Gunshi Karsan Dedhia, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ashwani Taneja

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ASHWANI TANEJA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA no.3656/Mum./2012 (Assessment Year : 2007–08) Income Tax Officer, Ward–25(2)(3) Pratyaksha Kar Bhawan …….………. Appellant C–12, Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (East), Mumbai 400 057 v/s Shri Gunshi Karsan Dedhia L/h Shri Ramesh Gunshi Dedhia (son) Shri Prakash Gunshi Dedhia (son) Smt. Maniben Gunshi Dedhia (wife) Smt. Kalpana Deepak Nandu (daughter) ..…….………. Respondent Smt. Neeta Abhay Gada (daughter) 501–502, Lalit Kunj Tajpal Scheme, Road no.3 Vile Parle (East), Mumbai 400…

U.K. Builders, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 2, Thane

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Sanjay Garg, (Jm) सर्वश्री बी.आर.बास्करन, ऱेखा सदस्य एर्ुं श्री संजम गगग, न्याययक सदस्य के समक्ष आमकय अऩीर सं /I.T.A. No.344/Mum/2014 (ननधधगयण वषग / Assessment Year : 2010-11) बनाम/ M/S U K Builders, Asstt.Commissioner Of Income Tax, 308, Circle-2, Vs. A Wing, 6Th Floor, Ashar I T Park, New Majestic Shopping Centre, 144, Jss Road, Wagale Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400004. Road No.16-Z, Thane (W)-400604 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

…TA Nos.3920 to 3922/Mum/2012 and ITA No.6557/Mum/2012 dated 20-02-2015, wherein the Tribunal has decided the issue in favour of the assessee by following the decision of jurisdictional Bombay High Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Brahma Associates (2011)(333 ITR 289). The Ld A.R further submitted that the decision rendered in the case of Brahma Associates (supra) has since been approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s Sarkar Builders (Civil Appeal No.4476 of 2015 dated 15-05-2015). In view of the above, we set aside the order passed by Ld CIT(A) on the issue relating to commercial are…

ITO 15(1)(1), Mumbai vs. U.K. Builders, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Sanjay Garg, (Jm) सर्वश्री बी.आर.बास्करन, ऱेखा सदस्य एर्ुं श्री संजम गगग, न्याययक सदस्य के समक्ष आमकय अऩीर सं /I.T.A. No.344/Mum/2014 (ननधधगयण वषग / Assessment Year : 2010-11) बनाम/ M/S U K Builders, Asstt.Commissioner Of Income Tax, 308, Circle-2, Vs. A Wing, 6Th Floor, Ashar I T Park, New Majestic Shopping Centre, 144, Jss Road, Wagale Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400004. Road No.16-Z, Thane (W)-400604 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

…TA Nos.3920 to 3922/Mum/2012 and ITA No.6557/Mum/2012 dated 20-02-2015, wherein the Tribunal has decided the issue in favour of the assessee by following the decision of jurisdictional Bombay High Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Brahma Associates (2011)(333 ITR 289). The Ld A.R further submitted that the decision rendered in the case of Brahma Associates (supra) has since been approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s Sarkar Builders (Civil Appeal No.4476 of 2015 dated 15-05-2015). In view of the above, we set aside the order passed by Ld CIT(A) on the issue relating to commercial are…

ITO WD 23(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Abhilasha Combines, Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

…,further held as under: “In so far as question (d)is concerned,counsel for the parties state that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of this Court in the matter of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Brahma Associates reported in (2011)333 ITR 289 (Bom.).In view of the above we see no reason to entertain question (d) as framed.” The department has also filed appeal for the AY.2005-06,before the Hon’ble Court raising the similar grounds.The Court dismissed the appeal. In our opinion,the issue has attained finality in view of the judgments of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court delivered in the ab…

Four Dimensions Securities (I) Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 4(1), Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off in terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S Four Dimensions Addl. Commissioner Of Securities (India) Ltd. Income Tax, Range-4(1), बनाम/ 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, Mumbai Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F Assessment Year: 2005-06 Addl. Commissioner Of M/S Four Dimensions Income Tax, Range-4(1), Securities (India) Ltd. बनाम/ 6Th Floor,Aayakar Bhavan, 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Fort, Mumbai (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S Four Dimensions Addl. Commissioner Of Securities (India) Ltd. Income Tax, Range-4(1), बनाम/ 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, Mumbai Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F

…on. The hon’ble Apex Court while coming to the above conclusion duly considered following decisions:- i. Reliance Jute and Industries Ltd. vs CIT (1979) 120 ITR 921 (SC) ii. CIT vs Happy Homes Enterprises (2015) 372 ITR 1 (Bom.) iii. CIT vs Brahma Associates 333 ITR 289 (Bom.)(para-5) iv. CIT vs Gold Coin Health Food Pvt. Ltd. 304 ITR 308 (SC) v. CIT vs Shah Sadiq & Sons 166 ITR 102 (SC) (Para-9) vi. CIT vs Vatika Township Pvt Ltd. (2014), 367 ITR 466 (SC)(para-9). 8 Four dimensions Securities India Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.322 & 790/Mum/2009 & Ors cases It is also noted that the case of the assessee is squarely covere…

DCIT -4(1), Mumbai vs. Four Dimension Securities (I) Ltd, Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off in terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S Four Dimensions Addl. Commissioner Of Securities (India) Ltd. Income Tax, Range-4(1), बनाम/ 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, Mumbai Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F Assessment Year: 2005-06 Addl. Commissioner Of M/S Four Dimensions Income Tax, Range-4(1), Securities (India) Ltd. बनाम/ 6Th Floor,Aayakar Bhavan, 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Fort, Mumbai (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S Four Dimensions Addl. Commissioner Of Securities (India) Ltd. Income Tax, Range-4(1), बनाम/ 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, Mumbai Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F

…on. The hon’ble Apex Court while coming to the above conclusion duly considered following decisions:- i. Reliance Jute and Industries Ltd. vs CIT (1979) 120 ITR 921 (SC) ii. CIT vs Happy Homes Enterprises (2015) 372 ITR 1 (Bom.) iii. CIT vs Brahma Associates 333 ITR 289 (Bom.)(para-5) iv. CIT vs Gold Coin Health Food Pvt. Ltd. 304 ITR 308 (SC) v. CIT vs Shah Sadiq & Sons 166 ITR 102 (SC) (Para-9) vi. CIT vs Vatika Township Pvt Ltd. (2014), 367 ITR 466 (SC)(para-9). 8 Four dimensions Securities India Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.322 & 790/Mum/2009 & Ors cases It is also noted that the case of the assessee is squarely covere…

Four Dimensions Securities (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 4(1), Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off in terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S Four Dimensions Addl. Commissioner Of Securities (India) Ltd. Income Tax, Range-4(1), बनाम/ 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, Mumbai Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F Assessment Year: 2005-06 Addl. Commissioner Of M/S Four Dimensions Income Tax, Range-4(1), Securities (India) Ltd. बनाम/ 6Th Floor,Aayakar Bhavan, 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Fort, Mumbai (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S Four Dimensions Addl. Commissioner Of Securities (India) Ltd. Income Tax, Range-4(1), बनाम/ 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, Mumbai Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F

…on. The hon’ble Apex Court while coming to the above conclusion duly considered following decisions:- i. Reliance Jute and Industries Ltd. vs CIT (1979) 120 ITR 921 (SC) ii. CIT vs Happy Homes Enterprises (2015) 372 ITR 1 (Bom.) iii. CIT vs Brahma Associates 333 ITR 289 (Bom.)(para-5) iv. CIT vs Gold Coin Health Food Pvt. Ltd. 304 ITR 308 (SC) v. CIT vs Shah Sadiq & Sons 166 ITR 102 (SC) (Para-9) vi. CIT vs Vatika Township Pvt Ltd. (2014), 367 ITR 466 (SC)(para-9). 8 Four dimensions Securities India Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.322 & 790/Mum/2009 & Ors cases It is also noted that the case of the assessee is squarely covere…