CIT v. Realest Builders & Services Ltd.

307 ITR 202Supreme Court of India2008#1759 most cited
64

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Realest Builders & Services Ltd. · 307 ITR 202 SC · income accrual · Section 45(2) capital gains · Section 145(3) method of accounting · sale deed registration · tripartite agreement · transfer of rights · Section 2(47)(v) · project completion method · percentage completion method · retention money

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Realest Builders & Services Ltd.

ACIT 25(3), Mumbai vs. Punit Construction Co., Mumbai

ITA 228/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Pawan Singhआयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./228/Mum/2014, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year:2010-11 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Acit-25(3) M/S. Punit Construction Co. Agarwal Residency, Shankar Lane, 308, C-11, Bandra-Kurla Complex Vs. Kandivali (W),Mumbai-67. Bandra (E),Mumbai-400 051. Pan:Aaafp 1231 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri M. Dayasagar-Dr Assessee By: Dr. K.Shivram-Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 29.06.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement:27.07.2016 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश देश आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त देश देश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- अनुसार Challenging The Order Dated 11.10. 2013 Of Cit(A)-35,Mumbai The Assessing Officer (Ao) Has Filed The Present Appeal.Assessee-Firm Is Engaged In Business As Builder & Developer.It Filed Its Return Of Income On 19.9.2010,Declaring Total Income At Rs.33.91 Lakhs.The Ao Completed The Assessment On 7.3.2013,U/S. 143(3) Of The Act,Determining The Income Of The Assessee At Rs.19.21 Crores.

For Appellant: Dr. K.Shivram-ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Dayasagar-DR
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

…ined, that it was not the case of the AO that the assessee had no intention to complete the project, that it had claimed that the project was over in the next AY.The FAA referred to the cases of MKV Asia P.Ltd (294 ITR 655),Realest Builders and Services Ltd. (307 ITR 202)and Sanjeev Woolen Mills (274 ITR 434)and held that there were no different facts in the current year as compared to earlier years,that there was no justification to disturb the accepted principles of accounting followed by assessee since AY.2002-03 for the same project, that the system of accounting was in line with the prescribed accounting sta…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Lease Plan Fleet Management India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4541/DEL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri C.M. Garg & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year : 2007-08 D.C.I.T., Circle 4(1), Vs. Lease Plan Fleet Management India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. 301, Ca Chambers, 2183-84/62, Naiwala, Gurudwara Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. [Pan: Aaacl 4751A] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Ms. Anima Baranwal, Sr. Dr Respondent By : Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate & Sh. Aditya Vohra, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 06.06.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.06.2016 Order Per L.P. Sahu: This Is An Appeal By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-Vii, New Delhi Dated 25.08.2010 For The Assessment Year 2007-08 On The Following Grounds : “1. The Order Of The Learned It(A) Is Erroneous & Contrary To Facts & Law. 2. On The Fact & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(Appeals) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.3,00,88,607/- Made By The Ao By Disallowing The Provisions Directly Debited In The Balance Sheet.

For Appellant: Ms. Anima Baranwal, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate &
Section 143(3)

…ent method of accounting in a subsequent year unless he is able to demonstrate that there is under-estimation of profits by giving facts and figures in that regard. It was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Realest Builder & Services Ltd. [2008J 307 ITR 202 (SC) as under:- "7........ln cases where the Department wants to tax an assessee on the ground of the liability arising in a particular year, it should always ascertain the method of accounting followed by the assessee in the past and whether change in method of accounting was warranted on the ground that profit is being underestimated under the…