CIT v. Neha Builders Pvt. Ltd.

Haware Engineers & Builders P. Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-4(2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ravish Soodita Nos.282 & 283/Mum/2018 (Assessment Years: 2013 -14 & 2014 - 15) Haware Engineers & Builders Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 413/416 Vardhaman Market, Air India Building, 19Th Floor, Vs. Sector-17, Dbc, Vashi, Nariman Point, Navi Mumbai- 400 705 Mumbai – 400 021 Pan – Aaach2577C (Appellant) (Respondent)

…brought to tax as its “business Income” and not as “Income from house property”. Further, the ld. A.R in support of his aforesaid contention also relied on the judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT Vs. Neha Builders Pvt. Ltd. (2008) 296 ITR 661 (Guj). Apart there from, support was also drawn by him from the orders of coordinate benches of the Tribunal in the following cases: (1). ACIT Vs. Haware Construction Private Ltd. (ITA Nos. 3321/Mum/2016 & 3172/Mum/2016 dated 31.08.2018) (2). Runwal Construction Vs. ACIT (ITA No. 5408/Mum/2016 dated 22.02.2018) (3). Progressive Homes Vs. ACIT (IT…

Kanakia Spaces Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-Central Circle 4(1), Mumbai

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are allowed for

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singh

…he decision of Delhi High Court in Ansal Housing Finance and Leasing Ltd (supra) and there is contrary decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of Neha Builders 7 ITA No. 7288, 7289 Mum 17 & 209 and 210 Mum 18-M/s Kanakia Spaces Pvt. Ltd. Pvt. Ltd. (296 ITR 661) wherein it was held that the unsold unit cannot be taxed on the basis of notional ALV. It was argued by ld ld AR for the assessee that there is no decision of Jurisdictional High Court, therefore, the assessee is entitled for the benefit of the decision favorable to the assessee. The ld. AR of the assessee further submits that in assessee’s gr…

M/S.3Nn Corporation, Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT-27, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

…ore us, the learned Counsel for the assessee sated that this is a highly debatable issue because two high courts have different propositions and according to the learned Counsel, Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Neha Builders (P.) Ltd. [2008] 296 ITR 661 (Gujarat) held that the property held as stock-in-trade, the notional annual letting value cannot be computed on such property. On the other hand, the Hon’ble Delhi High court in the case of Ansal Housing Financing & Leasing Co. Ltd. (supra) held that the ALV of unsold flats which are stock-in-trade are assessed under the head of income from hous…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-15(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Haware Constructions Private Limited, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

…n 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…

Chamber Construction Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-3(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

…the assessee stated that this issue is squarely covered by various decisions of co-ordinate bench, wherein view is taken that there are two different views of High Courts namely Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT vs. Neha Builders P. Ltd. (2008) 296 ITR 661 (Guj) has held that the property hold as stock in trade becomes or partake character of the stock and no income derived therefrom, whatever, income from business cannot be held as income from house property. Similarly, the opposite view is taken by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Ansal Housing and Construction Ltd (2013)354 ITR 180…

Chamber Construction Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-3(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

…the assessee stated that this issue is squarely covered by various decisions of co-ordinate bench, wherein view is taken that there are two different views of High Courts namely Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT vs. Neha Builders P. Ltd. (2008) 296 ITR 661 (Guj) has held that the property hold as stock in trade becomes or partake character of the stock and no income derived therefrom, whatever, income from business cannot be held as income from house property. Similarly, the opposite view is taken by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Ansal Housing and Construction Ltd (2013)354 ITR 180…

DCIT Cen Cir 4(1) Cen RG 4, Mumbai vs. Oberoi Realty Ltd, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Oberoi Realty Limited, The Deputy Commerz, 3Rd Floor, Vs. Commissioner Of Income International Business Tax, Central Circle-4(1), Park, Oberoi Garden City, Room No. 1916, Air Off Western Express India Building, Nariman Highway, Goregaon (East), Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400063. Pan No. Aabck0235H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner Oberoi Realty Limited, Of Income Tax, Central Vs. Commerz, 3Rd Floor, Circle-4(1), Room No. International Business 1916, Air India Building, Park, Oberoi Garden Nariman Point, Mumbai- City, Off Western 400021. Express Highway, Goregaon (East), Mumbai-400063. Pan No. Aabck0235H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-14 Oberoi Realty Limited, The Deputy Commerz, 3Rd Floor, Vs. Commissioner Of Income International Business Tax, Central Circle-4(1), Park, Oberoi Garden City, Room No. 1916, Air Off Western Express India Building, Nariman Highway, Goregaon (East), Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400063. Oberoi Realty Ltd. Pan No. Aabck0235H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner Oberoi Realty Limited, Of Income Tax, Central Vs. Commerz, 3Rd Floor, Circle-4(1), Room No. International Business 1916, Air India Building, Park, Oberoi Garden Nariman Point, Mumbai- City, Off Western 400021. Express Highway, Goregaon (East), Mumbai-400063. Pan No. Aabck0235H Appellant Respondent

…Homes v. ACIT (ITA No. 5082/Mum/2016 for AY 2012-13) and ACIT v. M/s Haware Construction Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 3321/Mum/2016 for AY 2009-10 and ITA No. 3172/Mum/2016 for AY 2011-12). Also reference is made by him to the decision in CIT v. Neha Builders Pvt. Ltd. 296 ITR 661 (Guj). On the other hand, the Ld. DR relies on the decision in Ansal Housing Finance & Leasing Co. Ltd (supra) and thus supports the order of the CIT(A). 11. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. The reasons for our decisions are given below. The same issue arose in the orders of the Tribunal referred b…

Oberoi Realty Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cr 4(1) Cr 4, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Oberoi Realty Limited, The Deputy Commerz, 3Rd Floor, Vs. Commissioner Of Income International Business Tax, Central Circle-4(1), Park, Oberoi Garden City, Room No. 1916, Air Off Western Express India Building, Nariman Highway, Goregaon (East), Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400063. Pan No. Aabck0235H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner Oberoi Realty Limited, Of Income Tax, Central Vs. Commerz, 3Rd Floor, Circle-4(1), Room No. International Business 1916, Air India Building, Park, Oberoi Garden Nariman Point, Mumbai- City, Off Western 400021. Express Highway, Goregaon (East), Mumbai-400063. Pan No. Aabck0235H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-14 Oberoi Realty Limited, The Deputy Commerz, 3Rd Floor, Vs. Commissioner Of Income International Business Tax, Central Circle-4(1), Park, Oberoi Garden City, Room No. 1916, Air Off Western Express India Building, Nariman Highway, Goregaon (East), Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400063. Oberoi Realty Ltd. Pan No. Aabck0235H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner Oberoi Realty Limited, Of Income Tax, Central Vs. Commerz, 3Rd Floor, Circle-4(1), Room No. International Business 1916, Air India Building, Park, Oberoi Garden Nariman Point, Mumbai- City, Off Western 400021. Express Highway, Goregaon (East), Mumbai-400063. Pan No. Aabck0235H Appellant Respondent

…Homes v. ACIT (ITA No. 5082/Mum/2016 for AY 2012-13) and ACIT v. M/s Haware Construction Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 3321/Mum/2016 for AY 2009-10 and ITA No. 3172/Mum/2016 for AY 2011-12). Also reference is made by him to the decision in CIT v. Neha Builders Pvt. Ltd. 296 ITR 661 (Guj). On the other hand, the Ld. DR relies on the decision in Ansal Housing Finance & Leasing Co. Ltd (supra) and thus supports the order of the CIT(A). 11. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. The reasons for our decisions are given below. The same issue arose in the orders of the Tribunal referred b…

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

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalm/S. Vijay Grihniramn P. Ltd. Dcit. Central Circle-3(1) 201, Marine Chambers Mumbai Vs. 43, New Marine Lines Mumbai 400020 Pan – Aaacv2806N Appellant Respondent

…ts during the relevant previous year. Therefore, no notional income on account of annual letting value can be added to the income of the assessee. In support of such contention he relied upon the following decisions: - i) CIT vs. Neha Builders P. Ltd. (2008) 296 ITR 661 (Guj) ii) C.R. Developments P. Ltd. ITA No. 4277/Mum/2012 dated 13.04.2015 3 M/s. Vijay Grihniramn P. Ltd. iii) Runwal Constructions vs. ACIT ITA No. 5408/Mum/2016 dated 22.02.2018 iv) ITO vs. Arihant Estates Pvt. Ltd ITA No. 6037/Mum/2016 dated 27.06.2018. 6. The learned Departmental Representative relied upon the observations of the learned Co…

Kanakia Spaces P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Kanakia Spaces Pvt. Acit, Central Circle- Ltd. 215 Atrium, 10Th Floor, 4(1), Air India Vs. Near Marriot Courtyard Building, 19Th Floor, Hotel, Andheri-Kurla Road, Nariman Point, Andheri (E), Mumbai- Mumbai. 400093. Pan No. Aaack2629J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Anuj Kisnadwala, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 07/08/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/10/2018

…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. ACIT (ITA No. 5620/M…

DCIT 9(2), Mumbai vs. Magnus Properties P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwaldy. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Circle–9(2), Mumbai V/S M/S. Magnus Properties Pvt. Ltd. Uniphos House, Madhu Park ……………. Respondent 11Th Road, Khar (West) Mumbai 400 052 Pan – Aadcm7520M

…us Properties Pvt. Ltd. re–opening of assessment under section 147 of the Act is valid. In support of his contention, the learned Departmental Representative relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT v/s Neha Builders Pvt. Ltd., [2008] 296 ITR 661 (Guj.). 6. So far as the merits of the issue is concerned, the learned Departmental Representative submitted, since the assessee is holding the property as stock–in–trade and is in the business of leasing out property, the rental income derived by the assessee is to be treated as business income. 7. The learned Authorised Representative (A.R.)…

Haware Engineers & Builders P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 4(2), Mumbai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

…in 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 judgment 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…

Housing Development & Infrastructure Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 5(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

…eemed rental income on the properties which were stock in trade of the assessee. 72. Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submits that the issue in appeal is covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Neha Builders [296 ITR 661] and the Bombay Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Mayank Chemiplast Pvt. Ltd. in ITA.No. 4072/Mum/2011 (A.Y. 2007-08), M/s. C.R. Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. JCIT in ITA.No. 4277/Mum/2012 dated 13.05.2015, Runwal Construction v. ACIT in ITA.No. No. 5408/Mum/2016 (A.Y. 2012-13) dated 22/02/2018. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further referring to…

Asst CIT 15(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Haware Construction P. Ltd, Navi Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan ()

…n 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…