CIT v. Hindustan Samuh Awas Ltd.

377 ITR 150High Court2015#2775 most cited

What is CIT v. Hindustan Samuh Awas Ltd. authority for?

Where an assessee files a timely application for a completion certificate for a housing project, any subsequent delay in obtaining the certificate that is not attributable to the assessee should not result in denial of the tax deduction under section 80IB(10). The assessee cannot be penalized for administrative delays beyond their control.

43

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Hindustan Samuh Awas Ltd. · section 80IB(10) · completion certificate delay · timely application completion certificate · delay not attributable to assessee · housing project deduction · eligibility 80IB · denial of deduction

Also reported as

62 Taxmann.com 175

Issues it is cited on

section 80ib(10)within four yearssection 80ibsection 80isection 132(4a)childsection 292csection 30reasoned ordersection 292loose paperssection 29

Judgments citing CIT v. Hindustan Samuh Awas Ltd.

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE vs. MS S S LANDMARKS, PUNE

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

ITA 977/PUN/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.977 & 972/Pun/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2016-17 Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. S. S. Landmarks, Pune Unit U, Shakti Chamber, S.No.77-1/1A/1/3, Sangamwadi, Pune 411 003 Maharashtra Pan : Aadas1463K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri V.L. JainFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 801B(10)Section 80I

…ct, however, the delay in issuing the ‘completion certification was stated to be attributable to the concerned authority. In support of its case, the assessee relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hindustan Samuh Awas Ltd. Vs. CIT 377 ITR 150. M/s. S.S. Landmarks 6. In order to verify the claim of assessee, the AO addressed a letter to the Chief Executive Officer, Dehu Road Cantonment Board to clarify the reasons for delay in issuing ‘completion certificate’ to the assessee. In response, the CEO, Dehu Road Cantonment submitted that the assessee could complete a part of the project, i…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), PUNE, PUNE vs. MS S S LANDMARKS, PUNE

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

ITA 972/PUN/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.977 & 972/Pun/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2016-17 Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. S. S. Landmarks, Pune Unit U, Shakti Chamber, S.No.77-1/1A/1/3, Sangamwadi, Pune 411 003 Maharashtra Pan : Aadas1463K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri V.L. JainFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 801B(10)Section 80I

…ct, however, the delay in issuing the ‘completion certification was stated to be attributable to the concerned authority. In support of its case, the assessee relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hindustan Samuh Awas Ltd. Vs. CIT 377 ITR 150. M/s. S.S. Landmarks 6. In order to verify the claim of assessee, the AO addressed a letter to the Chief Executive Officer, Dehu Road Cantonment Board to clarify the reasons for delay in issuing ‘completion certificate’ to the assessee. In response, the CEO, Dehu Road Cantonment submitted that the assessee could complete a part of the project, i…

M/S. CITY CORPORATION LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE

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

ITA 528/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P Bora & Saukhya LakadeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 133(1)(d)Section 143(2)Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.527 & 528/PUN/2024 Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 M/s. City Corporation Limited DCIT, Central Circle – 917/19A, City Chambers, F C Road, Vs. 1(2), Pune Pune – 411004 PAN: AACCC2920K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Suhas P Bora & Saukhya Lakade Department by : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date of hearing : 13-11-2024 Date of pronouncement : 18-12-2024 O R D E R PER R. K. PANDA, VP : The above two appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the co…

M/S. CITY CORPORATION LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE

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

ITA 527/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P Bora & Saukhya LakadeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 133(1)(d)Section 143(2)Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.527 & 528/PUN/2024 Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 M/s. City Corporation Limited DCIT, Central Circle – 917/19A, City Chambers, F C Road, Vs. 1(2), Pune Pune – 411004 PAN: AACCC2920K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Suhas P Bora & Saukhya Lakade Department by : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date of hearing : 13-11-2024 Date of pronouncement : 18-12-2024 O R D E R PER R. K. PANDA, VP : The above two appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the co…

THE ACIT (CENTRAL)-I, BHOPAL vs. M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

ITA 37/IND/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80

…r approved building plan. The assessee has placed on record electricity bills and property tax payment challens for these 12 flats and has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Hindustan Samuh Awas Ltd. (2015) 377 ITR 150 (Bom.) for the proposition that where the application was filed in time the delay in obtaining the completion certificate was not attributable to the assessee and he cannot be penalized. 7. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) observed that the facts of the instant case are distinguishable from those before the Hon‟ble High Court in as much as here though the ap…

THE ACIT (CENTRAL)-I, BHOPAL vs. M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

ITA 36/IND/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80

…r approved building plan. The assessee has placed on record electricity bills and property tax payment challens for these 12 flats and has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Hindustan Samuh Awas Ltd. (2015) 377 ITR 150 (Bom.) for the proposition that where the application was filed in time the delay in obtaining the completion certificate was not attributable to the assessee and he cannot be penalized. 7. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) observed that the facts of the instant case are distinguishable from those before the Hon‟ble High Court in as much as here though the ap…

THE ACIT (CENTRAL)-I, BHOPAL vs. M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

ITA 35/IND/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80

…r approved building plan. The assessee has placed on record electricity bills and property tax payment challens for these 12 flats and has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Hindustan Samuh Awas Ltd. (2015) 377 ITR 150 (Bom.) for the proposition that where the application was filed in time the delay in obtaining the completion certificate was not attributable to the assessee and he cannot be penalized. 7. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) observed that the facts of the instant case are distinguishable from those before the Hon‟ble High Court in as much as here though the ap…

THE ACIT (CENTRAL)-I, BHOPAL vs. M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

ITA 34/IND/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80

…r approved building plan. The assessee has placed on record electricity bills and property tax payment challens for these 12 flats and has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Hindustan Samuh Awas Ltd. (2015) 377 ITR 150 (Bom.) for the proposition that where the application was filed in time the delay in obtaining the completion certificate was not attributable to the assessee and he cannot be penalized. 7. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) observed that the facts of the instant case are distinguishable from those before the Hon‟ble High Court in as much as here though the ap…

M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT, 2(1), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

ITA 24/IND/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80

…r approved building plan. The assessee has placed on record electricity bills and property tax payment challens for these 12 flats and has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Hindustan Samuh Awas Ltd. (2015) 377 ITR 150 (Bom.) for the proposition that where the application was filed in time the delay in obtaining the completion certificate was not attributable to the assessee and he cannot be penalized. 7. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) observed that the facts of the instant case are distinguishable from those before the Hon‟ble High Court in as much as here though the ap…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 3,, AURANGABAD vs. M/S. KASLIWAL NEST,, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 27/PUN/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.27/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit, Circle-3, Vs. M/S. Kasliwal Nest, Aurangabad. 215/216, 1St Floor, Building No.3, Apna Bazar, Jalna Road, Aurangabad- 431005. Pan : Aajfk5915H Appellant Respondent C.O. No.09/Pun/2022 (Arising Out Of Ita No.27/Pun/2019) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Kasliwal Nest, Vs. Dcit, Circle-3, 215/216, 1St Floor, Building Aurangabad. No.3, Apna Bazar, Jalna Road, Aurangabad- 431005. Pan : Aajfk5915H Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Keyur Patel Assessee By : Shri S. N. Puranik Date Of Hearing : 17.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 2, Aurangabad [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 17.10.2018 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2 C.O. No.09/Pun/2022 The Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee Against The Appeal Of The Revenue. 2. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Revenue In Ita No.27/Pun/2019 For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri S. N. PuranikFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…ITAT, ‘D’ Bench, Mumbai in the case of ACIT vs. M/s. Dharti Enterprises in ITA No.6023/Mum/2012 for A.Y. 2006-07 decided on 18.05.2015. He also placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdiction High Court in the case of CIT vs. Hindustan Samuh Awas Ltd. 377 ITR 150 (Bombay) and the decision of the Hon’ble 8 C.O. No.09/PUN/2022 Karnataka High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Majestic Developers 426 ITR 175 (Karnataka). He further submits that the ratio of the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal (supra) and decision of the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court (supra) have no application to the facts…

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. M/S.GOLDEN TRELLIS DEVELOPMENTS,, PUNE

In the result, both appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2550/PUN/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No’S.2549 & 2550/Pun/2016 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer, M/S.Golden Trellis Ward-2(2), Pune. Vs Developments, S.No.38(1), 779, Balewadi, Pune – 411045. Pan: Aaaag 6124 C Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By Shri Hari Krishan – Ar Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe & Shri Shivraj B More – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 26/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21/10/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Pune, Dated 08.08.2016 & 12.08.2016 For The A.Y. 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively. The Appellant Revenue In A.Y.2012-13 Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Cit(A) Has Erred In Allowing The Assessee Claim Of Deduction Of Rs.24,39,34,737/- U/S 80Ib(10) For A.Y.2012-13, When The Assessee Had Failed To Obtain The Completion Certificate From The Local Authority Within The Stipulated Due Date 31.03.2012 As Per Provisions Of Section 80Ib(10)(A) Of The I.T.Act, 1961. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Cit(A) Has Failed To Appreciate The Fact The That The Occupancy Certificate

Section 80I

…have discussed in earlier paras. Therefore, in totality of the circumstances, we are of the opinion that there was no delay on the part of the Municipal Authorities. 12. Discussion on case laws submitted by the Ld.AR: 12.1. CIT Vs. Hindusthan Samuh Awas Ltd 377 ITR 150(Bom) : In this case Hon’ble Bombay High Court has observed as under : ITA No’s.2549 & 2550/PUN/2016for A.Y. 2012-13 & 13-14 M/s.Golden Trellis Developments (R) Quote, “ Unfortunately, Sub-section (10) and the explanation do not give any importance to the issuance of such Completion Certificate by the concerned architect. It gives importance onl…

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. M/S.GOLDEN TRELLIS DEVELOPMENTS,, PUNE

In the result, both appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2549/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No’S.2549 & 2550/Pun/2016 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer, M/S.Golden Trellis Ward-2(2), Pune. Vs Developments, S.No.38(1), 779, Balewadi, Pune – 411045. Pan: Aaaag 6124 C Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By Shri Hari Krishan – Ar Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe & Shri Shivraj B More – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 26/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21/10/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Pune, Dated 08.08.2016 & 12.08.2016 For The A.Y. 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively. The Appellant Revenue In A.Y.2012-13 Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Cit(A) Has Erred In Allowing The Assessee Claim Of Deduction Of Rs.24,39,34,737/- U/S 80Ib(10) For A.Y.2012-13, When The Assessee Had Failed To Obtain The Completion Certificate From The Local Authority Within The Stipulated Due Date 31.03.2012 As Per Provisions Of Section 80Ib(10)(A) Of The I.T.Act, 1961. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Cit(A) Has Failed To Appreciate The Fact The That The Occupancy Certificate

Section 80I

…have discussed in earlier paras. Therefore, in totality of the circumstances, we are of the opinion that there was no delay on the part of the Municipal Authorities. 12. Discussion on case laws submitted by the Ld.AR: 12.1. CIT Vs. Hindusthan Samuh Awas Ltd 377 ITR 150(Bom) : In this case Hon’ble Bombay High Court has observed as under : ITA No’s.2549 & 2550/PUN/2016for A.Y. 2012-13 & 13-14 M/s.Golden Trellis Developments (R) Quote, “ Unfortunately, Sub-section (10) and the explanation do not give any importance to the issuance of such Completion Certificate by the concerned architect. It gives importance onl…

ACIT-24(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S.ATUL PROPERTIES, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 4394/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 4393 & 4394/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years:2010-11 & 2011-12) Acit-24(1) बिधम/ M/S. Atul Properties Room No.604, Piramal 501-502, Trade Avenue, Off Vs. Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Suren Road, Western Express Mumbai-400012. Highway, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400093. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aamfa3756F (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Damor (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Naresh Jain/Mahaveer Jain & Ms. Carmi Shroff सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/05/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/06/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeal Preferred By Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-36, Mumbai Dated 29.12.2017 For A.Y.2010-11 & 2011- 12 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Naresh Jain/Mahaveer Jain &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Damor (DR)
Section 80Section 801B(10)

…facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in allowing the deduction u/s. 801B(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v/s. Hindustan Samuh Awas Ltd. (2015) 62 Taxmann.com 175 notwithstanding that the facts of the aforesaid case are clearly distinguishable from our instant case.” 3. And the additional grounds of appeal raised by the revenue which are supplementing ground nos. 2 to 3 of original grounds reads as under: - “1. “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the appellant’s case and in law the ld. CIT(…

ACIT-24(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S.ATUL PROPERTIES, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 4393/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 4393 & 4394/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years:2010-11 & 2011-12) Acit-24(1) बिधम/ M/S. Atul Properties Room No.604, Piramal 501-502, Trade Avenue, Off Vs. Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Suren Road, Western Express Mumbai-400012. Highway, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400093. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aamfa3756F (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Damor (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Naresh Jain/Mahaveer Jain & Ms. Carmi Shroff सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/05/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/06/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeal Preferred By Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-36, Mumbai Dated 29.12.2017 For A.Y.2010-11 & 2011- 12 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Naresh Jain/Mahaveer Jain &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Damor (DR)
Section 80Section 801B(10)

…facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in allowing the deduction u/s. 801B(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v/s. Hindustan Samuh Awas Ltd. (2015) 62 Taxmann.com 175 notwithstanding that the facts of the aforesaid case are clearly distinguishable from our instant case.” 3. And the additional grounds of appeal raised by the revenue which are supplementing ground nos. 2 to 3 of original grounds reads as under: - “1. “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the appellant’s case and in law the ld. CIT(…

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 14 (2),, PUNE vs. M/S. KAMDHENU REAL ESTATE PVT.LTD,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 867/PUN/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Jun 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Krishna V. GujarathiFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…22-05-2012. 2) On facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A)- 9,Pune has erred in allowing the deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the IT Act, 1961, relying upon the decision of Hon’ble High Court in the case of CIT vs. Hindustan Samuh Awas Limited (2015) 377 ITR 150(Bom.) without appreciating the fact that the facts in the said case are different from the facts in the assessee’s case. 3) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A)- 9, Pune erred in not appreciating the fact that the delay in issuing the completion certificate by the Municipal Corporation in the case of Hindustan Samuh Awas…

M/S MUSTAFA ASSOCIATES,,CHANDRAPUR vs. C.I.T.-3, NAGPUR

The appeal of the appellant is allowed in term of aforestated observation

ITA 167/NAG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 167/Nag/2015 आयकर िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 M/S Mustafa Associates, Nr Vasant Bhavan, Kasturba Rd. Chandrapur – 442 402(Maharashtra) Pan : Aalfm 6727 F . . . . . . . अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Aayakar Bhavan, Nagpur – 440 001 (Mh) . . . . . . . ""यथ" / Respondent }Kjk / Appearances Assessee By : Shri S. C. Thakar Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Headoo सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 18/02/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 28/04/2022 आदेश / Order Per Jamlappa D Battull, Am; The Appellant Against The Revisionary Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Nagpur [For Short “Cit”] Dt. 07/03/2015 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”], Which In Turn Dove Out Of Regular Order Of Assessment Dt. 27/11/2012 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act By The Income Tax Officer-Ward-2, Chandrapur [For Shot “Ao”], Filed These Appeals Before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [For Short “The Tribunal”] U/S 253. Itat-Nagpur Page 1 Of 16

For Appellant: Shri S. C. ThakarFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Headoo
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 253Section 263Section 80I

…PCIT Vs Dharti Enterprise” where the Lordship have held that; “We find that this issue is now no longer res integra as it stands concluded against the Revenue and in favour of the Respondent by the decision of this Court in CIT v/s. Hindustan Samuh Awas Ltd., 377 ITR 150 . In the above case, it has been held that whether the project is completed within the time framed provided under Section 80IB(10) of the Act, and an application for issuance of completion certificate is filed within time, then delay on account of the competent authority in issuing completion certificate would not deprive the Assessee, the benefi…

M/S. VENUS INFRASTRUCTURE & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, (OSD) CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1582/AHD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1582/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 M/S. Venus Infrastructure & D.C.I.T.,(Osd) Developers (P) Ltd., Vs. Central Circle-8, 801-802, Broadway Business Ahmedabad. Centre, Opp. Mayor’S Bungalow, Law Garden Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad. Pan: Aahcs6254J

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parimal Sinh B. Parmar, &For Respondent: Shri Ritesh Parmar, CIT.D.R
Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…ire project within prescribed time limit. Reliance is placed on: CIT vs. Tarnctar Corporation - (2012) 362 rTR 174 (Gujarat) (Annexure "B"); ITO vs. Saket Corporation - (2015) 234 Taxman 435 (Gujarat) (Annexure "C"); CIT vs. Hindustan Samuh Awas Ltd. - (2015) 377 ITR 150 (Bombay) (Annexure "D"); PCIT vs. Ambcy Developer P. Ltd. - (2018) 399 ITR 216 (P&H) (Annexure “E"); In view of (he above, deduction u/s 80-IB(10) cannot be denied to the assessee especially when there is no fault on the part of the assessee and when delay in getting BU permission cannot be attributable to the assessee. Hence, CIT(A) has rightly…

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

…i.e. 31.03.2013 and therefore, the assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act on the income from these buildings too. In support of this contention, he placed reliance upon the following decisions: a) CIT vs. Hindustan Samuh Awas Ltd (2015) 377 ITR 150 (Bom.) b) M/s. Sriram Constructions, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Hyderabad in ITA No.1300/2001 & Others dated 29.4.2016. c) CIT vs. M/s. Ittina Properties (P) Ltd in ITA No.556 of 2013 & others dated 15.7.2014 of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court. 10. As regards the objection of the Revenue that some of the flats exceeded the area of 1500 sft, he sub…

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

…i.e. 31.03.2013 and therefore, the assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act on the income from these buildings too. In support of this contention, he placed reliance upon the following decisions: a) CIT vs. Hindustan Samuh Awas Ltd (2015) 377 ITR 150 (Bom.) b) M/s. Sriram Constructions, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Hyderabad in ITA No.1300/2001 & Others dated 29.4.2016. c) CIT vs. M/s. Ittina Properties (P) Ltd in ITA No.556 of 2013 & others dated 15.7.2014 of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court. 10. As regards the objection of the Revenue that some of the flats exceeded the area of 1500 sft, he sub…

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

…i.e. 31.03.2013 and therefore, the assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act on the income from these buildings too. In support of this contention, he placed reliance upon the following decisions: a) CIT vs. Hindustan Samuh Awas Ltd (2015) 377 ITR 150 (Bom.) b) M/s. Sriram Constructions, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Hyderabad in ITA No.1300/2001 & Others dated 29.4.2016. c) CIT vs. M/s. Ittina Properties (P) Ltd in ITA No.556 of 2013 & others dated 15.7.2014 of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court. 10. As regards the objection of the Revenue that some of the flats exceeded the area of 1500 sft, he sub…

Showing 1–20 of 43 · Page 1 of 3