How many judgments cite CIT v. Neha Builders Pvt. Ltd.?

129 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Neha Builders Pvt. Ltd. (296 ITR 661), spanning 2018 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Neha Builders Pvt. Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 23(5), Section 22, Section 143(3), Section 14A, Section 23, Section 24(a).

CIT v. Neha Builders Pvt. Ltd.

296 ITR 661High Court2008#791 most cited

What is CIT v. Neha Builders Pvt. Ltd. authority for?

Income from unsold flats held as stock-in-trade by a builder or developer is assessable as business income, not income from house property, for assessment years prior to the insertion of Section 23(5) of the Income-tax Act.

129

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v Neha Builders · 296 ITR 661 · unsold flats · stock in trade · business income · income from house property · section 22 · section 23 · notional rent · builder developer

Sections most often in play

Section 23(5)Section 22 Section 143(3)Section 14A Section 23 Section 24(a)Section 37(1)Section 132

Issues it is cited on

section 23(5)annual letting value section 23(4)annual value section 23(1)section 24(a)section 211 project completion method section 43c section 22 percentage completion method section 35d

Judgments citing CIT v. Neha Builders Pvt. Ltd.

M/S Raj Landmark Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3-2, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 242/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Aug 2018AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Gupta (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Roshanta Meena (JCIT)

Section 23(1)(a)

…operties and to let out these properties, the income earned by letting out these properties is main objective of the company, therefore, rent received from letting out the properties is assessable as income from business. (iv) CIT Vs. Neha Builders Pvt. Ltd. 296 ITR 661 (Guj). 5. On the other hand, the ld DR has relied upon the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the Assessing Officer has followed the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and therefore, when ITA 242/JP/2018_ 5 Raj Landmark P Ltd. Vs ITO commercial space was lying vacant, the provisions of Section 22 and 23 of the Act are ap…

Siddhivinayak Developers, Mumbai vs. DCIT 29(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-

ITA 6662/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Siddhivinayak Developers, The Dy. Commissioner Of Income C/O U.B. Lakhani & Co. Tax – 29(3), 202/A, Neelkanth Dhara, R/No. 402, C-10, 4Th Floor, N.S. Road, Opp.- Dhanwati – Vs. Prathasha Kar Bhavan, Hospital, Mulund (West), Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai - 400080 Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400051 Pan: Abdfs4339L

For Appellant: Shri D.C. Jain (AR)For Respondent: Shri Saurabh Deshpande (Sr. DR CIT)

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 23

…unwal Constructions vs. ACIT Mumbai ITA No. 5408/Mum/2016. In the said case the tribunal has decided the identical issue in favour of the assessee by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT versus Neha Builders Private Ltd 296 ITR 661 and the decision of ITAT Mumbai in the case of C.R. Developers Private Ltd vs. DCIT, ITA No.4277/Mum/2013. The Ld. counsel further submitted that since the findings of Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to the decision of ITAT Mumbai, the same is liable to be set aside. 3 Assessment Year: 2012-13 5. On the other hand, the Ld. departmental representative…

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6037/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Bleo/O. Income Tax Officer 2(1)(1) V. M/S. Arihant Estates Pvt. Ltd., 5Th 2Nd Floor, Kothari House, 57, Room No. 543, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Oak Lane, Fort, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai – 400 023

For Appellant: Shri Dharan V. GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari

Section 143(3)Section 23

…velopment Pvt. Ltd. v. J.C.I.T in ITA.No. 4277/Mum/2012 dated 13.05.2015 which decision was followed by the Ld.CIT(A). He further submitted that similar issue had come up before the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of the 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…

Sarang Property Developers P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, Ground of appeal raised by assessee is

ITA 5620/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Sarang Property Developers Acit, Central Circle 4(1) Pvt. Ltd. 215, Atrium, 10Th Floor, Air India Building, 19Th Floor, Nariman Point, Near Marriot Courtyard Hotel, Vs. Andheri-Kurla Road, Andheri Mumbai. (E), Mumbai-400093. Pan: Aadcs6382B Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Anuj Kisnadwala (Ar) Respondent By : Shri Virender Singh (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.06.2018 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh;

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala (AR)For Respondent: Shri Virender Singh (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 22Section 24aSection 254(1)

…e the assessee possessed such unoccupied unit in the course of his business as builder and developer. In support of his submission, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of CIT vs. Neha Builders Pvt. Ltd. (296 ITR 661), decision of Mumbai Tribunal in M/s Runwal 2 ITA No. 5620 Mum 16-Ms Sarang Property Developers Pvt. Ltd. Constructions vs. ACIT (ITA No. 5408/M/2016 dated 22.02.2018), M/s C.R. Developments Pvt. Ltd. vs. JCIT (ITA No. 4277/M/2012 dated 13.05.2015 ACIT vs. M/s Classique Associates in ITA No. 4575/Mum/2013 dated 29.06.2015. On the other hand,…

SHI vs. Hankarsingh & Others, Mumbai

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

ITA 5236/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shrin.K. Pradhanm/S. Shivshankar Singh & Others Dcit, Circle 29(3) C/O. M/S. Porwal & Porwal C-10, Pratyakshkar Bhavan 625, Laxmi Plaza, 6Th Floor Vs. Bandra-Kurla Complex Off. New Link Road Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400051 Pan –Aaaas5080P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri N.S. ParwalFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai

Section 23Section 24

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "I" Bench, Mumbai Before Shri Saktijit Dey, Judicial Member and ShriN.K. Pradhan, Accountant Member M/s. Shivshankar Singh & Others DCIT, Circle 29(3) C/o. M/s. Porwal & Porwal C-10, Pratyakshkar Bhavan 625, Laxmi Plaza, 6th Floor Vs. Bandra-Kurla Complex Off. New Link Road Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400051 PAN –AAAAS5080P Appellant Respondent Appellant by: Shri N.S. Parwal Respondent by: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai Date of Hearing: 16.05.2018 Date of Pronouncement: 23.05.2018 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey, JM This appeal has been filed by the assessee agains…

A. A. Estates Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6905/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)

Section 23

…o confirmed the same and hence the assessee has filed this appeal. 3. The Learned AR submitted that unsold flats have been held by the assessee as Stock in trade. He submitted that the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Neha Builder Pvt. Ltd. (296 ITR 661) has held that that any income derived from stock in trade would have the character of income from business and not income from house property. However, the tax authorities have placed reliance on the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ansal Housing Finance and Leasing Company Ltd (supra), wherein an identical issue…

Runwal Builders P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 5409/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri A.L. Sainim/S. Runwal Constructions Acit Central Circle-4(1) Runwal & Omkar Esquare Mumbai 5Th Floor, Opp. Sion- Vs. Chunabhatti Signal Sion (E), Mumbai 400022 Pan – Aaafr1211Q Appellant Respondent M/S. Runwal Builders P. Ltd. Acit Central Circle-4(1) Runwal & Omkar Esquare Mumbai 5Th Floor, Opp. Sion- Vs. Chunabhatti Signal Sion (E), Mumbai 400022 Pan – Aaafr1211Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rishabh ShahFor Respondent: Shri V. Vidhyadhar

Section 143(3)Section 23

…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 under Section 23 of the Act as income from house property. 4. On appeal the learned CIT…

Runwal Constructions, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 5408/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Rishabh ShahFor Respondent: Shri V. Vidhyadhar

Section 143(3)Section 23

Kamala Brothers, Mumbai vs. ITO 24(2)91), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 7134/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri N.K. Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri Dr. K. Shivaram, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 263

…accepted by the Assessing Officer in past assessments. ii) Taxability of closing stock of unsold flats under the head 'income from house property' is unwarranted in view of the Gujarat High Court's decision in the case of CIT vs. Neha Builders (P) Ltd. (2008) 296 ITR 661 (Guj.) iii) The Allahabad High Court in the case of Late (Smt.) Nirmala Sahu vs. CIT, Appeal No.4853 of 2007 dated 19.12.2013 held that when unsold units in the stock-in-trade were already treated as business assets, then the rental income from unsold unit in complex is taxable under the head 'income from business. iv) As per decision of Supreme…