CIT v. Sarkar Builders

375 ITR 392Supreme Court of India2015#1442 most cited

What is CIT v. Sarkar Builders authority for?

An assessee should not be prejudiced by differences in accounting treatment if accounting principles are duly followed and the issue is revenue neutral, as hypothetical income cannot be subjected to tax.

79

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Sarkar Builders · Sarkar Builders Supreme Court · accounting treatment · revenue neutral · hypothetical income · prejudice to assessee · income tax assessment · section 29 · section 80IB(10) · accounting principles · differences in accounting

Also reported as

277 CTR 2977 SCC 57957 Taxmann.com 313

Sections most often in play

Section 115BBESection 68Section 69ASection 80IB(10)Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 2(9)section 155bbesection 115bbe(1)section 80ib(10)section 155section 80ibadvance taxsection 80isection 115bbsection 29section 115bagricultural income

Judgments citing CIT v. Sarkar Builders

M/S Macro Marvel Projects Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Company Ward-IV(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2259/CHNY/2007[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jun 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…ction80IB(10) of the Act and assessee has complied with all the provisions of the Act and as noted by Hon’ble Madras High Court, this issue is now covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Sarkar Builders 375 ITR 392 and Hon’ble High Court has considered this aspect while hearing the arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee in para 9 which reads as under: “9. When these appeals are taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the questions of law raised in these appeals were already decided in favour of the appellant b…

The Pr Commissioner of Income Tax CIT(A) vs. M/S Karavali Housing

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

ITA/123/2016HC Karnataka04 Oct 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 260Section 260ASection 80I

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V. HOSMANI I.T.A. NO.123/2016 BETWEEN: 1. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIT(A) C.R.BUILDING, ATTAVARA MANGALURU-575 001. 2. THE ASST. COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-2(1), C.R.BUILDING BANGALORE-560 001. …APPELLANTS [BY SRI. E.I. SANMATHI, ADVOCATE A/W SRI. K.V.ARAVIND, ADVOCATE (PHYSICAL HEARING)] AND: M/s. KARAVALI HOUSING NO.9, CITY POINT, KODIALBAIL MANGALURU-575 001. PAN: AA…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Sahara India Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd., Lucknow

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes and the COs filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2481/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jul 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT, DR
Section 80I

…) Act, 2004 w.e.f. 01.04.2005 is applicable for projects approved after 01.04.2005 and not to those projects which are approved on or before 01.04.2005. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Sarkar Builders, reported in 375 ITR 392 and in the case of CIT vs. Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd., reported in 367 ITR 466, he submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in these decisions has held that the conditions prescribed u/s 80IB(10)(d) cannot be applied to projects approved prior to 01.04.2005. Therefore, the allegation of the AO that the assessee does not fulfill the condition of bu…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Shri. Hosagrahar

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA/601/2019HC Karnataka05 Mar 2021

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 54F

…I.T.A. NO.601 OF 2019 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ I.T.A. NO.601 OF 2019 BETWEEN: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 4TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU-560095 2. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, WARD-1(1) 4TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU-560095 ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADVOCATE-PH) AND: SHRI. HOSAGRAHAR VISVESVARAYA JAG…

The Commissioner of Income - Tax vs. M/S. Mahaveer Marvel

In the result, the appeal fails and the same is

ITA/13/2013HC Karnataka02 Sept 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 143(2)Section 260Section 260ASection 80I

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD I.T.A. NO.13/2013 BETWEEN: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE. 2. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD-4(3), C.R. BUILDING QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI.K.V.ARAVIND, ADV.,) AND: M/S. MAHAVEER MARVEL NO.1, 24TH MAIN MAHAVEER TOWERS J P NAGAR, 6TH PHASE BANGALORE-560078. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI.A.SHANKAR SR. ADV. A/W S…

Commissioner of vs. Mr Vinay Mishra

In the result, the appeal fails and the same is

ITA/75/2013HC Karnataka31 Aug 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 143(1)Section 260Section 260ASection 54Section 54(1)Section 54F

…ed expressly or by necessary 11 implication. [See: ‘Reliance Jute & Industries Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax’, AIR 1980 SC 251]. The aforesaid view was quoted with approval in ‘Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sarkar Builders’, (2015) 7 SCC 579. 8. The relevant extract of CBDT Circular No.1/2015 dated 21.01.2015 reads as under: 20.5 Applicability: These amendments take effect from 1st April, 2015 and will accordingly apply in relation to Assessment year 2015-16 and subsequent Assessment years. Thus, it is axiomatic that residential property, for which investment is made…

Harshvardhan Constructions, Mumbai vs. ITO 23(1)(5), Mumbai

ITA 5225/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Ravish Soodharshvardhan Constructions Income Tax Officer 11, Happy Home, 244 Waterfield Road; Ward 23(1)(5), 1St Floor, Vs. Bandra West, Mumbai – 400 050. Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai – 400 007. Pan– Aadfh6590D (Appellant) (Respondent) Income Tax Officer Vs. Harshvardhan Construvctions Ward 23(1)(5), 1St Floor , 11, Happy Home, 244 Waterfield Road; Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Bandra West, Mumbai – 400 050. Mumbai – 400 007. Pan– Aadfh6590D Harshvardhan Constructions Income Tax Officer 11, Happy Home, 244 Waterfield Road; Ward 23(1)(5), 1St Floor, Vs. Bandra West, Mumbai – 400 050. Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai – 400 007. Pan– Aadfh6590D

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S.C Tiwari, CIT D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80I

…sue in hand, it would be relevant to briefly cull out the reasons which had led the legislature to make available the definition of the term ―built-up area‖ in the statute. As observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sarkar Builders (2015) 375 ITR 392 (SC), prior to insertion of Section 80IB(14)(a), in many of the rules and regulations of the local authority approving the housing project ―built-up area‖ did not include projections and balconies. Probably, taking advantage of this fact, builders provided large balconies and projections making the residential units far bigger than as stipulated…

ITO 23(1)(5), Mumbai vs. Harshvardhan Constructions, Mumbai

ITA 5912/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Ravish Soodharshvardhan Constructions Income Tax Officer 11, Happy Home, 244 Waterfield Road; Ward 23(1)(5), 1St Floor, Vs. Bandra West, Mumbai – 400 050. Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai – 400 007. Pan– Aadfh6590D (Appellant) (Respondent) Income Tax Officer Vs. Harshvardhan Construvctions Ward 23(1)(5), 1St Floor , 11, Happy Home, 244 Waterfield Road; Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Bandra West, Mumbai – 400 050. Mumbai – 400 007. Pan– Aadfh6590D Harshvardhan Constructions Income Tax Officer 11, Happy Home, 244 Waterfield Road; Ward 23(1)(5), 1St Floor, Vs. Bandra West, Mumbai – 400 050. Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai – 400 007. Pan– Aadfh6590D

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S.C Tiwari, CIT D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80I

…sue in hand, it would be relevant to briefly cull out the reasons which had led the legislature to make available the definition of the term ―built-up area‖ in the statute. As observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sarkar Builders (2015) 375 ITR 392 (SC), prior to insertion of Section 80IB(14)(a), in many of the rules and regulations of the local authority approving the housing project ―built-up area‖ did not include projections and balconies. Probably, taking advantage of this fact, builders provided large balconies and projections making the residential units far bigger than as stipulated…

Gurvinder Kaur Bhatia, Indore vs. Pr. CIT-2, Indore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee(s) in ITANo

ITA 151/IND/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Dec 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Years: 2015-16

Section 263

…udgments: 1. Nirmal Textiles (1997) 224 ITR 378 (Gujarat High Corut) 2. CIT vs. Essar Teleholding Ltd. (2018) 3 SCC 253 3. CIT vs. M/s Shah Sadiq and Sons (1987) 3 SCC 516 4. CIT vs. Vatika Township Private ltd. (2015) 1SCC 1 5. CIT vs. Sarkar Builders (2015) 7 SCC 579 9. Per contra Ld. Departmental Representative(DR) vehemently argued strongly supporting the detailed finding of Ld. Pr. CIT. 10. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us and carefully gone through the judgments referred and relied by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee as well as the judgments referred in the impugned…

Harleen Kaur Bhatia, Indore vs. Pr. CIT-2, Indore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee(s) in ITANo

ITA 150/IND/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Dec 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Years: 2015-16

Section 263

…udgments: 1. Nirmal Textiles (1997) 224 ITR 378 (Gujarat High Corut) 2. CIT vs. Essar Teleholding Ltd. (2018) 3 SCC 253 3. CIT vs. M/s Shah Sadiq and Sons (1987) 3 SCC 516 4. CIT vs. Vatika Township Private ltd. (2015) 1SCC 1 5. CIT vs. Sarkar Builders (2015) 7 SCC 579 9. Per contra Ld. Departmental Representative(DR) vehemently argued strongly supporting the detailed finding of Ld. Pr. CIT. 10. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us and carefully gone through the judgments referred and relied by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee as well as the judgments referred in the impugned…

Vikram Developers & Promoters, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2796/PUN/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2795 & 2796/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Vikram Developers & Promoters, 19, Shrikrishna Heights, Ganeshkhind Road, Shivaji Nagar, Pune-411005. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aagfv4298R बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Central Circle-2(1), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Kishor Phadke Revenue By : Shri Milind Chahure सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 14.11.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: There Are Two Appeals Under Consideration Filed By The Assessee Against The Common Orders Of The Cit(A)-12, Pune Dated 08.09.2016 For The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively. Preliminary Issue - Condonation Of Delay – Both Appeals 2. Before Us, At The Outset, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Both The Appeals Could Not Be Filed In Time & The Said Appeals Were Filed With The Delay Of 01 Day. In This Regard, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Delay Is Unintentional & Prayed For Condoning The Same. 3. After Hearing Both The Sides & Considering The Smallness Of Delay In Filing Of Both The Appeals, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeals Of The Assessee In The Following Paragraphs. 4. The Facts & Grounds Are Common In Both The Appeals, Therefore, Both The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Composite Order. Accordingly, The Appeal-Wise Adjudication Is Taken Up In The Following Paragraphs.

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chahure
Section 132Section 68Section 80I

…not be applied to the projects cleared by the local authorities in earlier year i.e. in 2007 as in the case of the assessee. The relevant parts of the legal submission made by the ld. AR for the Assessee are extracted as under :- “1. CIT vs. Sarkar Builders – 375 ITR 392 (SC) 17) Thereafter, significant amendment, with which we are directly concerned, was carried out by Finance (No.2) Act, 2004 with effect from 1.4.2005. This amendment has already been noted above. The Legislature made substantial changes in sub-section (10). Several new conditions were incorporated for the first time, including the condition men…

M/S. Vikram Developers & Promoters, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2795/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2795 & 2796/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Vikram Developers & Promoters, 19, Shrikrishna Heights, Ganeshkhind Road, Shivaji Nagar, Pune-411005. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aagfv4298R बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Central Circle-2(1), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Kishor Phadke Revenue By : Shri Milind Chahure सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 14.11.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: There Are Two Appeals Under Consideration Filed By The Assessee Against The Common Orders Of The Cit(A)-12, Pune Dated 08.09.2016 For The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively. Preliminary Issue - Condonation Of Delay – Both Appeals 2. Before Us, At The Outset, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Both The Appeals Could Not Be Filed In Time & The Said Appeals Were Filed With The Delay Of 01 Day. In This Regard, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Delay Is Unintentional & Prayed For Condoning The Same. 3. After Hearing Both The Sides & Considering The Smallness Of Delay In Filing Of Both The Appeals, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeals Of The Assessee In The Following Paragraphs. 4. The Facts & Grounds Are Common In Both The Appeals, Therefore, Both The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Composite Order. Accordingly, The Appeal-Wise Adjudication Is Taken Up In The Following Paragraphs.

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chahure
Section 132Section 68Section 80I

…not be applied to the projects cleared by the local authorities in earlier year i.e. in 2007 as in the case of the assessee. The relevant parts of the legal submission made by the ld. AR for the Assessee are extracted as under :- “1. CIT vs. Sarkar Builders – 375 ITR 392 (SC) 17) Thereafter, significant amendment, with which we are directly concerned, was carried out by Finance (No.2) Act, 2004 with effect from 1.4.2005. This amendment has already been noted above. The Legislature made substantial changes in sub-section (10). Several new conditions were incorporated for the first time, including the condition men…

Siddhivinayak Homes, Mumbai vs. ITO 12(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4932/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri G.P. Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Gubgotra, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80I

…n under Sec. 80IB(10) in respect of the residential project under consideration. However, it was submitted by the ld. A.R, that subsequent to the aforesaid order of the Tribunal the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT-19, Mumbai Vs. Sarkar Builder (2015) 375 ITR 392 (SC) had inter alia observed, that as the definition of “built-up area” as provided in clause (d) of Sec. 80IB(14) P a g e | 6 ITA Nos. 4932 & 1457/Mum/2014 AYs. 2009-10 & 2010-11 M/s Siddhivinayak Homes Vs. ITO-12(1)(1) that was made available on the statute vide the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004, w.e.f 01.04.2005 was inextricably linked with the a…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Panvel vs. M/S. Sai Homes, Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1198/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1198/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Dcit, Panvel Circle, .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Panvel. बनाम / V/S. M/S. Sai Homes, 310/313, 3Rd Floor, Persipolis Co-Op. Society, Plot No.74-A, Sector-17, Vashi, New Mumbai-400703. ……""यथ" / Respondent Pan : Abafs3226K Revenue By : Shri Vilas Munde Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Pathak सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20.08.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A)-2, Thane Dated 28.02.2017 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Issue Raised In This Appeal Relates To The Granting Of Proportionate Deduction U/S 80Ib(10) Of The Act When There Is Violation To The Conditions Specified In The Clauses (C) & (F) I.E. Merger Of Flats & Sale Of Flats To Relatives Of Section 80Ib(10) Of The Act In Respect Of Certain Flats As Well As The On-Money Receipts In Respect Of Few Flats.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Vilas Munde
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 69Section 80I

…the persons and also perusal of the documents seized during the course of search were based upon by the Assessing Officer for coming to the said conclusion. However, the issue is now settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Sarkar Builders reported in 375 ITR 392 (SC), wherein it has been held that in respect of projects which were sanctioned prior to 01.04.2005, the area of balcony and terrace is to be excluded from the area of units for working out the total area of the flats, which is eligible for deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act. The amendment brought in by insertion of 80IB(14) of the Act…

Shripal Builders, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 17, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is dismissed

ITA 3732/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm M/S. Shripal Builders Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of 18, Saheb Building, Income Tax-17 195, D.N.Road Room No.121, Aayakar Fort, Mumbai – 400001 Bhavan, M.K.Road Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aatfs9508E Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 801BSection 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM M/s. Shripal Builders Vs. Pr. Commissioner of 18, Saheb Building, Income Tax-17 195, D.N.Road Room No.121, Aayakar Fort, Mumbai – 400001 Bhavan, M.K.Road Mumbai – 400 020 PAN/GIR No.AATFS9508E Appellant) .. Respondent) Assessee by Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi Revenue by Shri Manjunatha Swamy Date of Hearing 26/07/2018 Date of Pronouncement 18/10/2018 आदेश / O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M): This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of PR. CIT- 17, Mumbai dated 24/03/2017 for A.Y.2007-08. 2.…

DCIT, Cir-4(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Rdb Realty & Infrastructure Ltd., Kolkata

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 575/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jul 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri S.S.Godara, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Miraj D.Shah, AR
Section 143Section 14ASection 80Section 80I

…ded the said amendment to be having prospective effect only. ITA No. 575/Kol/2016 M/s RDB Realty & Infrastructure Ltd. Pvt. Ltd. A.Y.2011-12 6 6. Learned counsel representing assessee quotes hon’ble apex court’s decision in CIT vs M/s Sarkar Builders [2015] 375 ITR 392 (SC) settling the law about the above statutory amendment to be prospective effect. Learned Departmental Representative fails to rebut this settled legal position. We therefore uphold the CIT(A)’s findings in deleting the impugned 80IB deduction disallowance. This Revenue’s instant second substantive ground is declined accordingly. 7. This leave…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Padmini Infrastructure Development India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 3811/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 3807/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2002-03 Ita No. 3809/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05 Ita No. 3810/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Shefali Swaroop, CIT DR
Section 80I

…s Ltd (supra) has also held that the insertion of the definition of “built up area” was prospective in nature. While doing so, the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in CIT versus Sarkar Builders (2015) 7 SCC 579 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court was considering the applicability of section 80-IB (14) in respect of projects which were approved before 01/04/2005. The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court has noted that the Hon’ble Apex Court has opined in paragraph 25 of the judgment in the case of Sarkar Builders (supra) that one cannot expect an assessee to comply wit…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Padmini Infrastructure Development India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 3810/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 3807/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2002-03 Ita No. 3809/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05 Ita No. 3810/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Shefali Swaroop, CIT DR
Section 80I

…s Ltd (supra) has also held that the insertion of the definition of “built up area” was prospective in nature. While doing so, the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in CIT versus Sarkar Builders (2015) 7 SCC 579 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court was considering the applicability of section 80-IB (14) in respect of projects which were approved before 01/04/2005. The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court has noted that the Hon’ble Apex Court has opined in paragraph 25 of the judgment in the case of Sarkar Builders (supra) that one cannot expect an assessee to comply wit…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Padmini Infrastructure Development India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 3809/DEL/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 3807/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2002-03 Ita No. 3809/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05 Ita No. 3810/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Shefali Swaroop, CIT DR
Section 80I

…s Ltd (supra) has also held that the insertion of the definition of “built up area” was prospective in nature. While doing so, the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in CIT versus Sarkar Builders (2015) 7 SCC 579 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court was considering the applicability of section 80-IB (14) in respect of projects which were approved before 01/04/2005. The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court has noted that the Hon’ble Apex Court has opined in paragraph 25 of the judgment in the case of Sarkar Builders (supra) that one cannot expect an assessee to comply wit…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Padmini Infrastructure Development India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 3807/DEL/2015[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 3807/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2002-03 Ita No. 3809/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05 Ita No. 3810/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Shefali Swaroop, CIT DR
Section 80I

…s Ltd (supra) has also held that the insertion of the definition of “built up area” was prospective in nature. While doing so, the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in CIT versus Sarkar Builders (2015) 7 SCC 579 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court was considering the applicability of section 80-IB (14) in respect of projects which were approved before 01/04/2005. The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court has noted that the Hon’ble Apex Court has opined in paragraph 25 of the judgment in the case of Sarkar Builders (supra) that one cannot expect an assessee to comply wit…