CIT v. Lokhandwala Construction Inds. Ltd.

DCIT Cen Cir 7(3), Mumbai vs. M/S National Standard India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.3048/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit-Cc-7(3) M/S. National Standard Pvt.Ltd. Room No.655, 6Th Floor बिाम/ 412, Vardhman Chamber Aaykar Bhawan, M.K. Road Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle, Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Fort, Mumbai-400 011. स्थायीलेखा िं./जीआइआर िं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacn-9808-L (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Niraj Sheth-Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Tharian Oommen- Ld. Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 13/01/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / 05/04/2021 : Date Of Pronouncement

…the Ld CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.4,39,49,000/- relied upon the decision of the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of 2 M/s. National Standard India Private Limited Assessment Year: 2013-14 Lokhandwala Construction Inds Ltd 260 ITR 579 the same were rendered before the proviso to section 36(I)(iii) has been inserted vide Finance Act 2003 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A), is right in directing the AO to allow to set off of brought forwarded losses? 2. We have carefully heard the rival submissions and perused relevant material on re…

DCIT - 15(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Kalsha Builders Pvt. Ltd., Navi Mumbai

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sooddcit-15(2)(1) M/S Kalsha Builders Pvt. Ltd. R. No. 357, 3Rd Floor, A-1, Ashian Sector-17, Vashi, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan,M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400 705 Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan – Aaack3955F (Appellant) (Respondent)

…nd correct to treat them as a revenue expenditure and debit the same in the profit & loss account. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Asst. CIT Vs. Lokhandwala Construction Industries Ltd. (2003) 260 ITR 579 (Bom). In the said case, the Hon’ble High Court had observed that periodic costs cannot be treated as carrying costs and have to be allowed as deduction even though corresponding income is to be recognised only on completion of the project. The Hon’ble High Court while concluding as hereinabove had observed as under: “4. From the facts found by…

DCIT 8(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tata Housing Development Co. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and cross objections filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

…t be allowed till the project is complete and revenue recognized - thus this ground of appeal is dismissed. Reliance placed by Ld. Counsel on the following decisions: (i) Tata Chemicals Ltd. 256 ITR 395 (ii) CIT Vs. Lokhandwala Constructions India Ltd. (2003) 260 ITR 579. CO. NOs. 154 & 153/MUM/2019 M/s. Tata Housing Development Co. Ltd., (iii) Paranjape Griha Ninnan P. Ltd. Vs. Jt. C1T Spl Rg, 50 in ITA No. 2398/Mum/2001 dated 04-04-2006. (iv) Jt. CIT Spl Rg. 6 Vs. K. Raheja (P) Ltd. 102ITD 414. Is of no avail because in all these cases what has been decided is the fact of allowability of 'interest” as a 'period…

DCIT 8(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tata Housing Development Co. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and cross objections filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

…t be allowed till the project is complete and revenue recognized - thus this ground of appeal is dismissed. Reliance placed by Ld. Counsel on the following decisions: (i) Tata Chemicals Ltd. 256 ITR 395 (ii) CIT Vs. Lokhandwala Constructions India Ltd. (2003) 260 ITR 579. CO. NOs. 154 & 153/MUM/2019 M/s. Tata Housing Development Co. Ltd., (iii) Paranjape Griha Ninnan P. Ltd. Vs. Jt. C1T Spl Rg, 50 in ITA No. 2398/Mum/2001 dated 04-04-2006. (iv) Jt. CIT Spl Rg. 6 Vs. K. Raheja (P) Ltd. 102ITD 414. Is of no avail because in all these cases what has been decided is the fact of allowability of 'interest” as a 'period…

Lodha Developers Ltd(Formerly Known As Lodha Developers Private Limited), Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 7(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Bledy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. M/S. Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle – 7(3) 412, 71-G, Vardhman Chamber Room No. 655, 6Th Floor C.P. Road, Horniman Circle Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Fort, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aabcl1117D (Appellant) (Respondent) Lodha Developers Limited Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. {Since Merged M/S. Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd.,} Central Circle – 7(3) 412, 4Th Floor, 17G, Vardhman Chamber Room No. 655, 6Th Floor Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Fort, Mumbai - 400 001 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aabcl1117D (Appellant) (Respondent)

…"Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 89,11,71,622/- relied upon the decision of the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Lokhandwala Construction Inds Ltd 260 ITR 579 the same were rendered before the proviso to section 36(1)(iii) has been inserted vide Finance Act 2003." 3. "Whether on the fact and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 80,75,718/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 14A r.w.r 8D and limiting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer…

DCIT Cent. Cir. -7(3), Mumbai vs. Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Bledy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. M/S. Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle – 7(3) 412, 71-G, Vardhman Chamber Room No. 655, 6Th Floor C.P. Road, Horniman Circle Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Fort, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aabcl1117D (Appellant) (Respondent) Lodha Developers Limited Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. {Since Merged M/S. Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd.,} Central Circle – 7(3) 412, 4Th Floor, 17G, Vardhman Chamber Room No. 655, 6Th Floor Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Fort, Mumbai - 400 001 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aabcl1117D (Appellant) (Respondent)

…"Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 89,11,71,622/- relied upon the decision of the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Lokhandwala Construction Inds Ltd 260 ITR 579 the same were rendered before the proviso to section 36(1)(iii) has been inserted vide Finance Act 2003." 3. "Whether on the fact and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 80,75,718/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 14A r.w.r 8D and limiting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer…

Neelkanth Palm Realty, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 15(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Nk Pradhan, Am

…project since it is a specific purposes loan. She supported the orders of the lower authorities. 6. We noted from the above arguments and the case laws relied on the Hon’ble Bombay High court in the case of CIT vs. Lokhandwala Construction Inds. Ltd. [2003] 260 ITR 579 (Bombay) that the processing charges for loan are allowable expense. The learned Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the relevant findings of Hon’ble Bombay High Court which read as under: - “In the present case, the assessee was a builder. In the present case, the assessee had undertaken the Project of construction of flats under the…

Casa Bella Developers P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 6(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G Manjunathaassessment Year : 2009-10 Casa Bella Developers Private Ito 6(2)(1), Limited, Mumbai Vs. 111, Industrial Area, Sion (W), Mumbai – 400 022

…I.T (Appeals) failed to consider the following decisions placed before her: (i) Decision dated 22.09.2005 in wall street construction limited vs. Joint C.I.T reported at 5 SOT 103 (MUM) (SB) (ii) C.I.T. vs Lokhandwala construction industries Ltd reported at 260 ITR 579(BOM) 5. The CIT(Appeals has not considered the details showing he amounts of Tax Deducted at source from the interest paid to the loan creditors and the fact that the same was paid into govt. account, in giving direction to the AO to verify the same. 6 (a) The First appellant Authority was not justified in confirming the disallowance of Rs.99,…

Santosh Builders, Mumbai vs. ITO 17(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh Jm

…iture or revenue expenditure. Where assessee was in real estate business, interest paid on borrowed capital invested in immovable properties was allowable as deduction.” 12. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v/s Lokhandwala Constructions Inds. Ltd (260 ITR 579)(Bom.) held as under:- “While adjudicating the claim for deduction u/s 36(1)(iii), the nature of the expenses, whether the expenses are on capital account or revenue account is irrelevant. On the facts the assessee undertook two fold activities. It bought and sold flats. Secondly the assessee was also engaged in construction business. As the loan…