CIT v. Sane & Doshi Enterprises

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

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER K. 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 D…

ACIT 32(1), Mumbai vs. Ashapura Developers, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri M. Balaganesh, Am आमकय अऩीर सिं./ Ita No. 3607/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वषा / Assessment Year 2013-14) आमकय अऩीर सिं./ Ita No. 3608/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वषा / Assessment Year 2014-15) आमकय अऩीर सिं./ Ita No. 3609/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वषा / Assessment Year 2015-16) The Asst. Commissioner Of Income M/S Ashapura Developers Tax, Circle 32(1), Room No. 702, 101B, Hallmark Business 7Th Floor, C-41 To C-43, Kautilya Plaza, Opp. Gurunanak फनाभ/ Bhavan, G Block Bandra Kurla Hospital, Ant Gyaneshwar Complex Bandra (East), Marg, Bandra East, Vs. Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400 051 (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा सिं./Pan No. Aanfa1971F अऩीराथी की ओय से/ Appellant By : Shri Rajeev Harit, Cit Dr प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Respondent By : Shri Dr. K Shivaramam, Ar सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 01.07.2021 घोषणा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 01.07.2021 आदेश / O R D E R भहावीय ससिंह, उऩाध्मऺ के द्वाया / Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: These Appeals Of Assessee Are Arising Out Of The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)]-44, Mumbai, [In Short Cit(A)], In Ita Nos. 3607-3608/Mum/2019 M/S Ashapura Developers; Ays 13-14 To 15-16 Appeal No. Cit(A)-44/Jcit-32(1)/It-209 & 696A/16-17 & Even Date 22.03.2019. The Assessments Were Framed By The Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range 32(1), Mumbai (In Short Jcit/Ito/ Ao) For The A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Vide Order Dated 11.03.2016, 30.12.2016, 12.12.2017 Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’).

…out its property on lease and earning rent there from. Clearly it is not so in this case. Further, Ms. Khan the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-assessee invites our attention to the decision of this court in CIT v. Sane & Doshi Enterprises (2015) 377 ITR 165/ 232 Taxman 452/58 Taxmann.com 111 shdfdin on identical facts this court has taken a view that rental income received from unsold portion of the property constructed by real estate developers is assessable to tax as income from house property. In view of the above, the question as proposed does not given rise to any substantial question of law.…

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

…eceipts were to be brought to tax under the head „house property‟ (as claimed by the assessee) or as „business income‟ (as claimed by the revenue). The High Court after relying on its earlier order passed in the case of CIT Vs. Sane & Doshi Enterprises (2015) 377 ITR 165 (Bom), had observed, that in a case where a real estate developer is in receipt of rental income in respect of a property held by him as stock-in- trade of its business as that of a real estate developer, the said rental receipts was to be assessed under the head house property. Accordingly, the issue before the High Court in the aforesaid case w…

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

…eceipts were to be brought to tax under the head „house property‟ (as claimed by the assessee) or as „business income‟ (as claimed by the revenue). The High Court after relying on its earlier order passed in the case of CIT Vs. Sane & Doshi Enterprises (2015) 377 ITR 165 (Bom), had observed, that in a case where a real estate developer is in receipt of rental income in respect of a property held by him as stock-in-trade of its business as that of a real estate developer, the said rental receipts was to be assessed under the head house property. Accordingly, the issue before the High Court in the aforesaid case wa…

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:

…eceipts were to be brought to tax under the head „house property‟ (as claimed by the assessee) or as „business income‟ (as claimed by the revenue). The High Court after relying on its earlier order passed in the case of CIT Vs. Sane & Doshi Enterprises (2015) 377 ITR 165 (Bom), had observed, that in a case where a real estate developer is in receipt of rental income in respect of a property held by him as stock-in-trade of its business as that of a real estate developer, the said rental receipts was to be assessed under the head house property. Accordingly, the issue before the High Court in the aforesaid case wa…

DCIT Cen Cir 4(2) Cen RG 4, Mumbai vs. Rockfort Estate Developers P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

…Learned CIT(A) has rightly applied the principles laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shambhu Investments Pvt. Ltd. (supra). 11. We have also considered the Judgment passed by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sane and Doshi Enterprises (377 ITR 165), wherein it was held that income from house property – business income – income from property or business income – assessee engaged in construction of property – unsold property let out – rent assessable as income from house property. Even as per the aforementioned decision rental income was treated as ‘income from house property’. Learned CIT(A…

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

…s context the assessee has relied upon certain judicial precedents including decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Neha Builders P. Ltd. (supra). However, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sane & Doshi Enterprises (2015) 377 ITR 165 has held that accounting treatment given in the books of account by the assessee is not conclusive. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court has further held that the unsold portion of the property lying as stock-in-trade, if let out, the income derived there from is to be assessed under the head “income from house property”. The Hon'ble Supreme Cou…

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dy. 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 ITA No. 836/Mum./2015 (Assessment Year : 2011–12) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Circle–12(3)(2), Mumbai v/s M/s. Magnus Properties Pvt. Ltd. Uniphos House, Madhu Park ……………. Respondent 11th Road, Khar (West) Mumbai 400 052 PAN – AADCM7520M ITA No. 70…

Sane & Doshi Enterparises, Mumbai vs. Jt CIT 17(3), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

…from sale of these commercial flats should be brought to tax as long term capital gains. Our attention was drawn to the decision of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Sane & Doshi Enterprises (supra) from AY 2000-01 to 2008-09 reported in (2015) 377 ITR 165(Bom.), the said judgment dated 09- 04-2015 of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court is reproduced here under:- “ 20. We have, with the assistance of the learned counsel appearing on both sides, perused the Memo of Appeals and which are stated to be raising the above questions. They are common to all and, therefore, the Revenue as also the assessee's counsel…