CIT v. Neha Builders Pvt. Ltd.

Sheth Developers P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT Central Ciecle-4(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

…rior to the decision of the Hon‟ble High Court in the case of Chennai Properties referred to supra. This is the background in which all the Tribunal decisions had followed the decision of the Hon‟ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Neha Builders reported in 296 ITR 661. We find that the issue in dispute is also covered by the decision of Pune Tribunal in the case of Kumar Properties and Real Estates Pvt. Ltd., vs. DCIT in ITA No.2977/PUN/2017 for A.Y.2013-14 dated 28/04/2021. For the sake of convenience, the entire order is reproduced hereunder:- “This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed…

M/S Sheth Developers P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Central Circle- 4(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

…rior to the decision of the Hon‟ble High Court in the case of Chennai Properties referred to supra. This is the background in which all the Tribunal decisions had followed the decision of the Hon‟ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Neha Builders reported in 296 ITR 661. We find that the issue in dispute is also covered by the decision of Pune Tribunal in the case of Kumar Properties and Real Estates Pvt. Ltd., vs. DCIT in ITA No.2977/PUN/2017 for A.Y.2013-14 dated 28/04/2021. For the sake of convenience, the entire order is reproduced hereunder:- “This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed…

Pegasus Properties P. Ltd., Pune vs. Dy CIT, CC-2(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

…UN/2018) dated 9 November 2019 (Refer page 227 to 243 of legal paperbook), wherein the Hon'ble Tribunal following the decision of Hon'ble 9 ITA.NO. 943/MUM/2021 (A.Y: 2015-16) Pegasus Properties Pvt. Ltd., Gujarat High Court in case of Neha Builders Pvt Ltd (296 ITR 661) directed the AO to delete the addition made towards deemed rent on unsold flats. 20. Further, recently, the Hon'ble Tribunal in Appellant's own case for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 (ITA No. 350-352/MUM/2021 dated 23 December 2021). Copy enclosed at page no. 252 to 274 of the paper book respectively). The relevant extracts of the Hon'ble ITAT order…

D.C.I.T.-15(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Haware Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Navi Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

…Ansal Hsg. Finance & Leasing Co. Ltd., (supra), and submits that the order passed by the AO may be restored. 4.4. On the other hand, the ld. counsel of the assessee relies on the judgement of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Neha Builders Pvt. Ltd. 296 ITR 661 (Guj.) and the order of the Tribunal in M/s. Runwal Constructions vs. ACIT (ITA No.5408/Mum/2016 dtd.22/02/2018) and Progressive Homes vs. ACIT (ITA No.5082/Mum/2016 dtd. 16/05/2018). 4.5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. On the above issue, we come across one decision for the assessee and another…

Pegases Properties P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT - CC-2(3), Mumbai

In the result the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

…(A-B) 69,11,836 5.6. The ld. CIT(A) did not follow the decision of the Tribunal for AYs 2013-14 and AY 2014-15 in assessee's own case dated 09/11/2019 which had in turn relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in case of Neha Builders Pvt Ltd (296 ITR 661) but followed decision of the and Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Ansal Leasing Finance & Co. Ltd (354 ITR 180) and Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of Mangla Homes P Ltd 5 ITA Nos.350-352/Mum/2021 M/s. Pegasus Properties Pvt. Ltd., (325 ITR 281) and upheld the addition made by the Ld. AO on account of notional rent on unsold flats vacant.…

M/S. Artcia Construction, Mumbai vs. ACIT-29(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Blem/S. Aricia Construction V. Acit -29(1) 1501, 15Th Floor, B-Wing C-10, 1St Floor, Room No. 108 02 Commercial Complex Pratyakshkar Bhavan Opp. Asha Nagar, Mulund(W) Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai-400080 Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400051 Pan: Aaofa9504F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dilip Shah Department By : Shri Sanjay J. Sethi

…At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that the issue in appeal is squarely covered by various decisions of the Mumbai benches of the Tribunal wherein the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Neha Builders Pvt. Ltd., [296 ITR 661] was followed. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court held that if property is used as stock in trade then the said property would become or partake character of stock and any income derived from stock in trade would be income from business and not “income from house property”. Further, placing reliance on the de…

DCIT CC 4(2), Mumbai vs. K Raheja Copr Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ravish Soodk. Raheja Corporate Services Acit-14(2)(1), Room No. 432, 4Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. C-30, G- Block, Opp. Sidbi, Bkc, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Bandra, Mumbai-400 051 Road, Mumbai-400 020. Vs. Pan: Aabcn 9309B Appellant Respondent K. Raheja Corporate Pvt. Ltd., Dcit- Central Circle 4(2), Room No. 1918, 19Th Plot No. C-30, G-Block, Opp. Sidbi, Bkc, Bandra – (E), Floor, Air India Building, Mumbai-400 051 Nariman Point, Mumbai- Vs. 400 021. Pan: Aaacp0522B Appellant Respondent Dcit, Central Circle - M/S K. Raheja Corp. Pvt. (2)(1), Central Range -4 Ltd., Plot No. C-30, Block -G, Pr.Cit (C)-2 Bkc, Bandra (Eest), Room No. 1918, 19Th Mumbai-400 051 Vs. Floor, Air India Building, Pan: Aaacp0522B Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021. Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Madhur Aggrawal (Ar) Revenue By : Shri. Shiddaramappa (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 12.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.10.2021

…ry views of two non-jurisdictional High Courts i.e. Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Ansal Housing Finance & Leasing Co. Ltd. [2013] 354 ITR 180 (Del.) and that of the Hon‟ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT Vs. Neha Builders [2008] 296 ITR 661 (Guj.), the Tribunal had directed the A.O to delete the addition made by him towards the ALV of the flats that were held by the assessee as stock- 11 K. Raheja Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT 14(2)(1), Mumbai 12 ITA No. 7109/Mum/2018 – A.Y 2012-13 K. Raheja Corp Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, CC 4(2)-Mumbai DCIT, CC 4(2), Mumbai Vs. K. Raheja Corp.…

K. Raheja Corporate Services P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 14(2)(1), Mumbai

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ravish Soodk. Raheja Corporate Services Acit-14(2)(1), Room No. 432, 4Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. C-30, G- Block, Opp. Sidbi, Bkc, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Bandra, Mumbai-400 051 Road, Mumbai-400 020. Vs. Pan: Aabcn 9309B Appellant Respondent K. Raheja Corporate Pvt. Ltd., Dcit- Central Circle 4(2), Room No. 1918, 19Th Plot No. C-30, G-Block, Opp. Sidbi, Bkc, Bandra – (E), Floor, Air India Building, Mumbai-400 051 Nariman Point, Mumbai- Vs. 400 021. Pan: Aaacp0522B Appellant Respondent Dcit, Central Circle - M/S K. Raheja Corp. Pvt. (2)(1), Central Range -4 Ltd., Plot No. C-30, Block -G, Pr.Cit (C)-2 Bkc, Bandra (Eest), Room No. 1918, 19Th Mumbai-400 051 Vs. Floor, Air India Building, Pan: Aaacp0522B Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021. Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Madhur Aggrawal (Ar) Revenue By : Shri. Shiddaramappa (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 12.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.10.2021

…ry views of two non-jurisdictional High Courts i.e. Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Ansal Housing Finance & Leasing Co. Ltd. [2013] 354 ITR 180 (Del.) and that of the Hon‟ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT Vs. Neha Builders [2008] 296 ITR 661 (Guj.), the Tribunal had directed the A.O to delete the addition made by him towards the ALV of the flats that were held by the assessee as stock- 11 K. Raheja Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT 14(2)(1), Mumbai 12 ITA No. 7109/Mum/2018 – A.Y 2012-13 K. Raheja Corp Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, CC 4(2)-Mumbai DCIT, CC 4(2), Mumbai Vs. K. Raheja Corp.…

SHI vs. Hankar Singh & Others, Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singhaayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 8045/Mum/2019 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2013-14) Shivshankar Singh & Others The Income Tax Officer, Ward-29(3)(4) C/O. Porwal & Porwal Llp 625 Kautilya Bhavan, G-Bloc, Laxmi Plaa, 6Th Floor, Off New Link Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Road Andheri (West), Bandr(E) Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400 053 (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Aaaas5080P अऩीराथी की ओय े / Appellant By : Shri Narendra Porwal, Ar प्रत्मथी की ओय े / Respondent By : Smt. Smita Verma, Dr स नवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28.09.2021 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 28.09.2021 Aadosa / O R D E R भहावीय स िंह, उऩाध्मक्ष के द्वाया / Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Arising Out Of Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)]-40, Mumbai [In Short Cit(A)], In Appeal No. Cit(A)-40/10404/2016-17, Vide Dated 23.10.2019. The Assessment Was Framed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward 29(3)(4), Mumbai (In Short Ito/ Ao) For The A.Y. 2013-14 Vide Order Dated 11.03.2016 Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’). 2. The First Issue In This Appeal Of Assessee Is As Regards To The Order Of Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Considering The Closing Stock Of Unsold Premises & Estimating From The Same Unsold Closing Stock As Deemed Income From House Property At ₹4,64,892/-.

…n let out. However, the aforesaid provision has been made effective from 01.04.2018. The Coordinate Bench in the case of M/s. Runwal Constructions (supra), following the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Neha Builders Pvt. Ltd. 296 ITR 661 and the decision of the ITAT Mumbai Benches in the case of C.R. 3 Shivshankar Singh & Others; AY 13 -14 Developers P. Ltd (supra) has held that unsold flats held as stock in trade in the books of account when sold, the profit derived there from will be assessable under the head „income from business‟. That being the case, notional house property…

M/S Dosti Corporation (Pinnacle), Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 17 (1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

…tates Pvt. Ltd., vs DCIT which, inter alia, it is observed as follows:- 7. We have heard the rival submissions. The Ld. AR at the outset placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Neha Builders Pvt. Ltd., reported in 296 ITR 661 (Guj) which had held that where the property was held as stock in trade of the assessee, then the said property would partake character of stock and any income derived from stock would be income from business and not income from house property. In the instant case, admittedly, the assessee had treated the unsold flats at Jolly Bhavan and Aurovill…

Dy CIT CC 4 (1), Mumbai vs. M/S Kanakia Spaces Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood () Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S Kanakia Spaces Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle – 4(1), Vs. 10Th Floor, 215 Atrium, Andheri Room No. 1918, 19Th Floor, Kurla Road, Andheri (E) Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 059 Mumbai – 400 021 Pan No. Aaack2629J (Revenue) (Assessee) Assessee By : Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, A.R Revenue By : Shri Gurbinder Singh, D.R Date Of Hearing : 11/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 24/08/2021

…re identical to the facts in the above case, confirmed the addition of Rs.1,55,07,727/- made by the AO. 5. Before us, the Ld. counsel of the assessee files a Paper Book containing the judgement of the Hon‟ble Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Neha Builders P. Ltd. 296 ITR 661 and the order of the ITAT Mumbai in the case of Runwal Constructions v. ACIT (ITA Nos. 5408/Mum/2016 and 5409/Mum/2016 dated 22.02.2018), ITO v. Arihant Estates Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 6037/Mum/2016 dated 27.06.2018), C R Developments P. Ltd. v. JCIT (ITA No. 4277/Mum/2012 dated 13.05.2015), Sarang Property Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. ITA No.323/Mum/2020…