CIT v. Elegant Estates

383 ITR 49High Court2016#10580 most cited

What is CIT v. Elegant Estates authority for?

Where a housing project does not fully satisfy the conditions for deduction under section 80-IB(10), the assessee is entitled to a proportionate deduction on the units that do meet the requirements.

10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2022.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Elegant Estates · 383 ITR 49 · Section 80-IB(10) · proportionate deduction · housing project · deduction on units · income tax

Judgments citing CIT v. Elegant Estates

ACIT, Corp Cir-2, Coimbatore vs. Martin Builders Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 586/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.586 & 1178/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2013-14 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Matin Builders Pvt. Ltd., No. 101, 6Th Street Extension, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 2, Vs. No. 63, Race Course Road, Gandhipuram, Coimbatore 641 012. Coimbatore 641 018. [Pan:Aafcm1331G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Palani Kumar, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri T. Banusekar, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 18.11.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.01.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Coimbatore Dated 10.12.2018 For The Assessment Year 2014-15 & Order Dated 15.02.2019 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2014-15 On 29.11.2014. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & After Following Due Process, The Assessment

For Appellant: Shri S. Palani Kumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri T. Banusekar, C.A
Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80I

…wance and pass its consequential order.” 6 I.T.A. Nos. 586 & 1178/Chny/19 8. Against the above decision of the Tribunal, the Department preferred further appeal before the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court and vide its order in CIT v. Elegant Estates [2016] 383 ITR 49 (Mad), the Hon’ble High Court confirmed the order of the Tribunal by dismissing the appeal filed by the Department. 9. Moreover, similar view has also been taken by the Mumbai Benches of the Tribunal in the case of Om Swami Smaran Developers (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [2018] 90 taxmann.com 267 (Mumbai – Trib.) and relevant head-notes are reproduced as unde…

ACIT Corporate Circle 2, Coimbatore vs. Matin Builders Pvt Ltd., Coimbatore

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1178/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.586 & 1178/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2013-14 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Matin Builders Pvt. Ltd., No. 101, 6Th Street Extension, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 2, Vs. No. 63, Race Course Road, Gandhipuram, Coimbatore 641 012. Coimbatore 641 018. [Pan:Aafcm1331G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Palani Kumar, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri T. Banusekar, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 18.11.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.01.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Coimbatore Dated 10.12.2018 For The Assessment Year 2014-15 & Order Dated 15.02.2019 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2014-15 On 29.11.2014. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & After Following Due Process, The Assessment

For Appellant: Shri S. Palani Kumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri T. Banusekar, C.A
Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80I

…wance and pass its consequential order.” 6 I.T.A. Nos. 586 & 1178/Chny/19 8. Against the above decision of the Tribunal, the Department preferred further appeal before the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court and vide its order in CIT v. Elegant Estates [2016] 383 ITR 49 (Mad), the Hon’ble High Court confirmed the order of the Tribunal by dismissing the appeal filed by the Department. 9. Moreover, similar view has also been taken by the Mumbai Benches of the Tribunal in the case of Om Swami Smaran Developers (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [2018] 90 taxmann.com 267 (Mumbai – Trib.) and relevant head-notes are reproduced as unde…

ITO 32(3)(4), Mumbai vs. Shrikrishna Chaitanya Enterprises, Mumbai

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

ITA 4666/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Justice P P Bhatt & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Ito 32(3)(4), Mumbai Vs. M/S. Shri Krishna Chaitanya Room No.103, 1St Floor Enterprises, Bldg. No.C-10, Pratyakshakar 102, A-Wing, Radha Vilas Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex Apartment, Kandarpada, Bandra (East), Dahisar (W) Mumbai – 400 051 Mumbai – 400 008 Pan/Gir No. Abefs7379H (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Revenue By Shri Anand Mohan Assessee By None Date Of Hearing 28/09/2020 Date Of Pronouncement 06/10/2020

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 80I

…he denial of deduction on proportionate basis would meet the requirements of the said judgments and the principles of the natural justice. Some of the said decision relevant for the proposition of proportionate allowance of deduction includes Elegant Estates (383 ITR 49) (Bom); G V Corporation (38 SOT 174) (Mum. Trib); Nagarjun Homes (46 SOT 287) Hyd Trib etc. Further, notwithstanding the said argument, Ld Counsel also submitted that the provisions of clause (f) to section 80IB(10) of the Act are prospective in application and they will not apply to the building of Radha Govind under consideration. For this propo…

Harshvardhan Constructions, Mumbai vs. ITO 23(1)(5), Mumbai

ITA 5225/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Ravish Soodharshvardhan Constructions Income Tax Officer 11, Happy Home, 244 Waterfield Road; Ward 23(1)(5), 1St Floor, Vs. Bandra West, Mumbai – 400 050. Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai – 400 007. Pan– Aadfh6590D (Appellant) (Respondent) Income Tax Officer Vs. Harshvardhan Construvctions Ward 23(1)(5), 1St Floor , 11, Happy Home, 244 Waterfield Road; Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Bandra West, Mumbai – 400 050. Mumbai – 400 007. Pan– Aadfh6590D Harshvardhan Constructions Income Tax Officer 11, Happy Home, 244 Waterfield Road; Ward 23(1)(5), 1St Floor, Vs. Bandra West, Mumbai – 400 050. Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai – 400 007. Pan– Aadfh6590D

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S.C Tiwari, CIT D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80I

…n the units satisfying the extent of the built-up area. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon‘ble High Court of Madras in the case of Viswas Promoters Private Limited Vs. ACIT (2013) 214 Taxman 524 (Mad) and CIT Vs. Elegant Estates (2016) 383 ITR 49 (Mad). Also, a similar view had been taken by various co- ordinate benches of the Tribunal in viz.(i). DCIT vs. Brigade Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.,(20Q8) 119 TT J (Bang) 269; (ii). AIR Developers.,(2010) 122 ITD 125 (Nag); (iii). Sheh Developers Pvt. Ltd. 33 SOT 277 (Bom); (iv). Runwal Multihousing Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT, ITA Nos. 1015, 1016 & 1017/PN/2011;…

ITO 23(1)(5), Mumbai vs. Harshvardhan Constructions, Mumbai

ITA 5912/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Ravish Soodharshvardhan Constructions Income Tax Officer 11, Happy Home, 244 Waterfield Road; Ward 23(1)(5), 1St Floor, Vs. Bandra West, Mumbai – 400 050. Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai – 400 007. Pan– Aadfh6590D (Appellant) (Respondent) Income Tax Officer Vs. Harshvardhan Construvctions Ward 23(1)(5), 1St Floor , 11, Happy Home, 244 Waterfield Road; Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Bandra West, Mumbai – 400 050. Mumbai – 400 007. Pan– Aadfh6590D Harshvardhan Constructions Income Tax Officer 11, Happy Home, 244 Waterfield Road; Ward 23(1)(5), 1St Floor, Vs. Bandra West, Mumbai – 400 050. Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai – 400 007. Pan– Aadfh6590D

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S.C Tiwari, CIT D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80I

…n the units satisfying the extent of the built-up area. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon‘ble High Court of Madras in the case of Viswas Promoters Private Limited Vs. ACIT (2013) 214 Taxman 524 (Mad) and CIT Vs. Elegant Estates (2016) 383 ITR 49 (Mad). Also, a similar view had been taken by various co- ordinate benches of the Tribunal in viz.(i). DCIT vs. Brigade Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.,(20Q8) 119 TT J (Bang) 269; (ii). AIR Developers.,(2010) 122 ITD 125 (Nag); (iii). Sheh Developers Pvt. Ltd. 33 SOT 277 (Bom); (iv). Runwal Multihousing Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT, ITA Nos. 1015, 1016 & 1017/PN/2011;…

Soham Construction, Kalyan vs. ITO WD 2(4), Kalyan

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 336/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Narendra Singh Janpangi
Section 80I

…ued by Municipal council treating the composite flats as single unit the assessee shall be entitled for proportion deduction in view of the following judicial pronouncements: (a) Judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Elegant Estates [383 ITR 49] (b) Order of the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of ACIT v. Suncity Housing in ITA.No. 5183/Mum/2014 dated 30.05.2016. (c) Order of the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of DCIT v. Ekta Housing Pvt. Ltd in ITA.No. 3649/Mum/2009 dated 20.05.2011. (d) Order of the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Roham Homes v. DCIT in ITA.No. 423/PN/22011 dated 31.01.2013.…

ITO WD 2(4), Kalyan vs. Soham Constuction, Badlapur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 164/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Narendra Singh Janpangi
Section 80I

…ued by Municipal council treating the composite flats as single unit the assessee shall be entitled for proportion deduction in view of the following judicial pronouncements: (a) Judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Elegant Estates [383 ITR 49] (b) Order of the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of ACIT v. Suncity Housing in ITA.No. 5183/Mum/2014 dated 30.05.2016. (c) Order of the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of DCIT v. Ekta Housing Pvt. Ltd in ITA.No. 3649/Mum/2009 dated 20.05.2011. (d) Order of the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Roham Homes v. DCIT in ITA.No. 423/PN/22011 dated 31.01.2013.…

ITO 25(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Shree Krishna Chaitanya Enterprises, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 3321/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Ram Lal Negiफनाभ/ Income Tax Officer-25(1)(2), M/S. Shree Krishna Chaitanya R.No.204, C-11, Pratyaksh Kar Enterprises, Vs. Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, 102, A-Wing, Radha Vilas, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Apartment, Kandarpada, Dahisar (W), Mumbai – 68. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Abeps7379H (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Saikia, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Dr. K. Shivram & Mr. Aditya
Section 133ASection 69CSection 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER फनाभ/ Income Tax Officer-25(1)(2), M/s. Shree Krishna Chaitanya R.No.204, C-11, Pratyaksh Kar Enterprises, Vs. Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, 102, A-Wing, Radha Vilas, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Apartment, Kandarpada, Dahisar (W), Mumbai – 68. स्थामी रेखा सं./ PAN : ABEPS7379H (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant by : Shri S.K. Saikia, CIT-DR प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Respondent by : Dr. K. Shivram & Mr. Aditya Ajgaonkar सुनवाई की तायीख /…

Maitri Associates, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 1, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed

ITA 162/MUM/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh (Jm) & Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)

Section 2Section 260ASection 80Section 80I

…80IB(10) of the Act on proportionate basis on the flats, which are having built-up area of less than 1000 square ft. In support of this proposition he placed reliance on the decision rendered by Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Elegant Estates (2016) 383 ITR 49. 5. On the contrary, learned Departmental Representative submitted that learned CIT(A) has decided this issue by following decision rendered by Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Bengal Ambuja Housing Development Ltd. (IT Appeal No. 1735/Kol/2005 dated 24.3.2006). 6. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. We find me…

Maitri Associates, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 1, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed

ITA 161/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh (Jm) & Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)

Section 2Section 260ASection 80Section 80I

…80IB(10) of the Act on proportionate basis on the flats, which are having built-up area of less than 1000 square ft. In support of this proposition he placed reliance on the decision rendered by Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Elegant Estates (2016) 383 ITR 49. 5. On the contrary, learned Departmental Representative submitted that learned CIT(A) has decided this issue by following decision rendered by Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Bengal Ambuja Housing Development Ltd. (IT Appeal No. 1735/Kol/2005 dated 24.3.2006). 6. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. We find me…

CIT v. Elegant Estates (383 ITR 49) — Cited in 10 Judgments | BharatTax