CIT v. Neha Builders Pvt. Ltd.

Palm Grove Beach Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle-4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

Bench: Us With Delay Of 382 Days & 233 Days Respectively.

…uilders DCIT, Central Circle -4(2), Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai. Ferani Hotels Pvt. Ltd. 6332/M/2016 21.12.2018 2012-13 ACIT, Central Circle -4(1), Mumbai. 3.2. We also find that the Hon‟ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Neha Builders Pvt. Ltd., reported in 296 ITR 661 had decided the issue in favour of the assessee. Now, the decision of the Hon‟ble High Court is in favour of the assessee would constitute sufficient cause for explaining the delay in filing of the appeal by the assessee. In this regard, we find that the Hon‟ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Venkataramana Chuduva & Muramura Merchant re…

DCIT, Cir-3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Bengal Shapoorji Housing Development Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

…ng Finance & Leasing Company Limited Ltd. (2013) 354 ITR 180 (Del). On the other hand, it was noticed by the CIT(A) that the assessee had drawn support from the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT Vs. Neha Builders (P) Ltd. (2008) 296 ITR 661 (Guj) and also certain orders of the coordinate benches of the Tribunal. After deliberating on the facts of the case, it was observed by the CIT(A) that as per judicial proprietary in a case where there were conflicting decisions of two non-jurisdictional High Court‟s, the decision of a jurisdictional Tribunal delivered after considering such con…

Raheja Universal(Pvt) Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT C.C.-4(2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

…t finding has been given in para no. 7 which is reproduced as under.:- “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…

DCIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Bengal Shapoorji Housing Development Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh () & Shri Ravish Sood () Dcit, Circle-3(1)(1), M/S Bengal Shapoorji Housing Room No. 628, 6Th Floor, Vs. Development Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, S.P. Centre, 41-44, Mumbai – 400 020 Minoo Desai Marg, Mumbai - 400005 Pan No. Aaccm1595P (Revenue) (Assessee) Assessee By : Dr. K.Shivaram, Sr. Advocate Revenue By : Shri Tharian Oommen, D.R Date Of Hearing : 10/03/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/03/2021

…ng Finance & Leasing Company Limited Ltd. (2013) 354 ITR 180 (Del). On the other hand, it was noticed by the CIT(A) that the assessee had drawn support from the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT Vs. Neha Builders (P) Ltd. (2008) 296 ITR 661 (Guj) and also certain orders of the coordinate benches of the Tribunal. After deliberating on the facts of the case, it was observed by the CIT(A) that as per judicial proprietary in a case where there were conflicting decisions of two non-jurisdictional High Court‟s, the decision of a jurisdictional Tribunal delivered after considering such con…

ITO 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Arihant Estates P. Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 346/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

…t be brought to tax under the head „income from house property‟ simply because the flats remain unsold at the end of the year. The assessees also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Neha Builders Pvt. Ltd. (296 ITR 661) in support of their contentions. However, the AO referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ansal Housing Finance & Leasing Co. Ltd. (354 ITR 180) computed the notional annual letting value on the unsold flats and brought to tax 8 I.T.A. No 346/Mum/2019 M/s Arihant Estate Pvt. Ltd. under Section 23 of the Act as i…

M/S Osho Developers, Mumbai vs. ACIT-32, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ravish Soodita Nos.2372 & 1860/Mum/2019 (Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16) M/S Osho Developers Acit-32, Mumbai Bldg. No. C-11, 3Rd Floor, Osho, Plot No. 1534A, New Link Road, Vs. Room No. 306, Devki Nagar, Borivali (W), Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400 092 Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051 Pan – Aabfo2984J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Dr. K. Shivram, Senior Advocate & Ms.Neelam Jadhav, A.R Respondent By: Shri Uodal Raj Singh, D.R Date Of Hearing: 06.10.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.11.2020 O R D E R Per Ravish Sood, Jm The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Passed By The Cit(A)-44, Mumbai, Dated 08.02.2019, Which In Turn Arises From The Assessment Orders Passed Under Sec.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short „Act‟), Dated 02.12.2016 & 30.11.2017 For A.Y. 2014-15 & A.Y. 2015-16, Respectively. As The Issues Involved In The Captioned Appeals Are Inextricably Interlinked Or In Fact Interwoven, The Same Are Therefore Being Taken Up & Disposed Off By Way Of A Consolidated Order. We Shall First Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y. 2014-15 Wherein The Impugned Order Has Been Assailed Before Us On The Following Effective Grounds Of Appeal:

…thus, could not have been brought to tax in the hands of the assessee firm under Sec. 23(1) of the Act. In support of his aforesaid contention the ld. A.R relied on the judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT vs. Neha Builders (2008) 296 ITR 661 (Guj). It was ITA Nos. 2372 & 1860 /Mum/2019 6 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/s Osho Developers Vs. ACIT-32 submitted by the ld. A.R that the Hon‟ble High Court in its said judgment, had observed, that if a property is used as stock-in-trade, then the same would become or partake character of stock and any income derived from the stock would be „Incom…

Archie Creations, Thane vs. Pr. CIT - 32, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singh: A.Y : 2014-15

…e have heard both the Counsel and perused the records. Learned counsel of the assessee submitted that the flats are unsold stock in trade of the assessee. He referred to the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs Neha Builders (P.) Ltd., 296 ITR 661 (Gujarat) for the proposition that notional rent under Section 23 of the Act cannot be computed on flats which are stock in trade of the assessee. He also referred to several decisions of Bombay Tribunal to this effect. 6. Per Contra, learned Departmental Representative relied upon the order of the PCIT. He further submitted that learned PCIT is…

M/S.Emgee Homes Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT 6(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Blem/S. Emgee Homes Pvt. Ltd., V. Acit – 6(3)(1) C/O. 301 & 304, A Wing, 3Rd Floor Aayakar Bhavan Naman Midtown, Senapati Bapat Marg Mumbai Elphinstone, Mumbai – 400 013 Pan: Aabce2749Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P. Daniel Department By : Shri Maurya Pratap

…ely covered by the following decisions of the Tribunal:- (i) ITO v. M/s. Arihant Estates Pvt. Ltd., in ITA.No. 6037/Mum/2016 dated 27.06.2018. (ii) M/s Runwal Constructions v. ACIT in ITA.No. 5408/Mum/2016 dated 22.02.2018 (iii) CIT v. Neha Builders (P.) Ltd [296 ITR 661 (GUJ)] (iv) M/s. Saranga Estates Pvt. Ltd., v. DCIT in ITA.No. 4420/Mum/2017 dated 13.03.2019 4. Ld.DR vehemently supported the orders of the authorities below. 5. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below and the decisions relied on. On a perusal of the above orders of the Coordinate Benches we find that…

M/S. Ashford Corporation, Mumbai vs. The Addl. CIT RG 12(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Blem/S. Ashford Corporation V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax 16, Vasani Chambers Range – 17(2) Mezanine Floor {Previously Range – 12(2)} 47, New Marine Lines Mumbai Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aagfa9350D (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : None

…flats which were held as stock in trade by the assessee. 2 M/s. Ashford Corporation 3. Ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset submitted that identical issue had come up before the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Neha Builders Pvt. Ltd. [296 ITR 661 (Guj.)], wherein it has been held that when the property held as stock in trade the notional annual letting value cannot be computed on such property. Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that similar issue has been decided by the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of the M/s. Runwal Constructions v. ACIT in ITA.No. 5408 & 5409/Mum/20…

DCIT Cen Cir 1(2), Mumbai vs. Hiranandnani Palace Gardens P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negi

…refore it is the day-to-day business of the assessee and it was held that income was assessable under the head ‘business income’ and not under the head ‘house property’. Ld.AR also referred to the decision in the case of CIT Vs. Neha Builders P. Ltd., (2008) [296 ITR 661] (Guj), wherein it has been held that the company was incorporated with the main object of purchase, taking on lease or acquire by sale or let- out the buildings constructed by the assessee, the income derived from the property would also be termed as ‘income of business’, as the same is derived from the stock-in-trade, held by the assessee and n…

Haware Infrastructure Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 15(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singh

…at the order passed by the AO may be restored. ITA No. 2543 & 4021 Mum 2019-Haware Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 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…

Vijay Grihnirman P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

…e submits that the Assessing Officer relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Ansal Housing Finance & Leasing Co. Ltd. (supra), however, there is contrary decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of CIT vs. Neha Builders Pvt. Ltd. (2008) 296 ITR 661 (Guj.) it was held that where the property was held as stock-in-trade of the assessee, than the said property would partake character of stock and any income derived from stock would be Income from Business and not from House Property. The ld. AR of the assessee further submits that this tribunal in a number of decisions followed the decision o…

DCIT- 15(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Haware Construction Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

Accordingly, the CIT(A) following the view taken by his predecessor deleted the addition made by the A.O during the year under consideration and allowed the appeal

Bench: Shri G.Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodita Nos.3586 & 3578/Mum/2018 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Haware Construction Tax 15(2)(1), Private Limited Room No. 357, 3Rd Floor, 413-416, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Vardaman Market, Maharshi Karve Road, Sector-17, Vashi, Mumbai – 400 020 Navi Mumbai – 400 705

…“Income from house property”. 9. We have deliberated at length on the issue under consideration, in the backdrop of the observations of the lower authorities. We find, that the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT Vs. Neha Builders (P) ltd. (2008) 296 ITR 661 (Guj) had observed, that if the business of the assessee is to construct property and sell it or to construct and let out the same, then any income derived from the immovable properties held by it as its stock-in-trade cannot be assessed under the head “Income from house property”. The Hon‟ble High Court while concluding as herein above, had obse…

Gemstar Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 30(1), Mumbai

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Pawan Singh

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S.PANNU VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.5549/Mum/2016 Assessment Year 2012-13 Gemstar Enterprises, Vs. ACIT - 30(3), C-13 5th Floor, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Ground Floor , Eesha Kripa, Brarman Shabha, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra Lane, Malad(w), (E), Mumbai-400 051. Mumbai-400 064. PAN :AAGFG1145A (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Rajesh Kumar C. Gandhi Respondent by Shri Abhi Rama Kartikeyan Sr DR’s Date of Hearing 06/06/2019 Date of Pronouncement 06/06/2019 O R D E R UNDER SECTION 254(1) OF INCOME TAX…

Late Anilkumar R. Aggarwal (Legal Heir Smt.Saranga Aggarwal), Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-3(4), Mumbai

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. G. S. Pannu, V.P. & Hon’Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 4421 & 6906/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) In The Matter Of:

…8 narrated hereinbefore and also considering that identical issues have already been decided by the Coordinate Bench of ITAT by relying upon the decision of the Division Bench of Hon’ble Gujrat High Court in the case of CIT vrs. Neha Builders Pvt. Ltd. (2008) 296 ITR 661 in ITA No. 3321 & 3172/Mum/16 for AY 2009-10 & 2011-12 in the case of ACIT vrs. M/s Haware Construction Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Coordinate Bench of ITAT and in order to maintain judicial consistency and judicial discipline, we apply the same findings which are 11 I.T.A. No. 4421 & 6906/Mum/2017 Late Anilkum…

DCIT Cen Cir 4(1) Cen RG 4, Mumbai vs. Thakur Estate Development P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed as above

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm) Assessment Year-2012-13 Dcit, M/S Thakur Estate Central Circle-4(1), बनाम/ Development Pvt. Ltd. R. No.1916, 19Th Floor, G-1, Thakur House, Vs. Air India Building, Ahsok Nagar, Kandivali(E), Nariman Point, Mumbai-400101 Mumbai-400021 Pan No.Aaack2629J (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee)

…ble. 22. As regards decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ansal Housing & Finance and Leasing Co. Ltd. (supra) relied upon by learned CIT(A), we note that there is a decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Neha Builders Pvt. Ltd. (296 ITR 661), in which identical issue has been decided in favour of the assessee. Hence the ITAT Mumbai in ITA no. 5408/Mum/2016 in the case of Runwal Builders P. Ltd. by referring to Vegetable Products decision of Hon'ble Apex Court has decided the issue in favour of the assessee. Hence in this view of the matter also the issue is to be decided in favour o…

Haware Infotech Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 4(2), Mumbai

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ravish Soodita Nos.281 & 291/Mum/2018 (Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Haware Infotech Ltd. Acit- Central Circle-4(2) 413/416 Vardhaman Market Air India Building, 19Th Floor, Sector 17, Dbc, Vashi, Vs. Nariman Point, Navi Mumbai – 400 705 Mumbai – 400 021

…A No.1216 of 2016, dated 28.01.2019) (Bom). It was submitted by the ld. A.R that the Hon‟ble High Court in its aforementioned judgment had after referring to the judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT Vs. Neha Builder (P) Ltd. (2008) 296 ITR 661 (Guj) had concurred with the view therein taken, and had observed that the income generated by an assessee who was engaged in the business of acquiring and holding properties would be its „business income‟ and not income under the head “house property”. Apart there from, the ld. A.R relied on the judgment of Hon‟ble High Court of Gujarat in the c…

Vijay Enterprises, Mumbai vs. DCIT 30(3), Mumbai

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

…ss of Builders and Developers and has shown the unsold units as stock in trade. The ld. AR submits that the 2 Vijay Enterprises Grounds raised by the assessee are covered by the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Neha Builders (P.) Ltd. ( 296 ITR 661) dated 18th August, 2006 and the decisions of the Mumbai Tribunal in ITO Vs Arihant Estate Pvt Ltd in ITA No.6037/Mum/2016 for A.Y. 2012-13 dated 27/06/2018, Runawal Constructions Vs ITO & Runawal Builder P Ltd Vs ACIT in ITA No(s) 5408 & 5409/Mum/2016 respectively. The ld AR for the assessee also relied on the recent decision of Pune Tribuna…