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

Salasar Developers, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 2, Thane

In the result, the questions raised in the appeal are answered thus:—

ITA 2271/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2271/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Salasar Developers, Asst. Cit-11, बनाम/ Gr. Flr., Vrindavan, Salasar Thane Brijbhoomi, Temba Hospital Road, Vs. Bhayander (W), Thane-401 101 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aakfs 6465 R (Assessee) (Revenue) : आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2939/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बनाम/ Asst. Cit-11, Salasar Developers, Thane Thane-401 101 Vs. (Revenue) (Assessee) : : Shri Virag H. Shah Assessee By Revenue By : Shri Mohammed Rizwan सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 17.5.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 12.8.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: These Are Cross Appeals, I.E., By The Assessee & The Revenue, Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Ii, Thane (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 26.12.2012, Partly Allowing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting Its Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2009-10 Vide Order Dated 09.12.2011. 2

For Respondent: Shri Mohammed Rizwan
Section 143(3)Section 80

…ng Officer (A.O.) had worked out the built-up area in terms of section 80-IB(14)(a), defining built-up area, inserted by Finance (No.2) Act, 2004 w.e.f. 01.4.2005. The same has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in CIT vs. Sarkar Builders (reported at [2015] 375 ITR 392 (SC)) as only prospective, so that it shall apply on or after the date on which the said amendment comes into force, i.e., A.Y. 2005-06 onwards. The relevant project being admittedly approved on 28.5.2003 (PB pg. 37), i.e., prior to the commencement of the relevant previous year, being financial year 2004-05, on and from which the amendment comes…

Rupvakula Properites P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 10(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7520/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Dharan GandhiFor Respondent: Shri B.S. Bist
Section 80I

…e condition of completion of project within specified period, the conditions imposed under the amended provisions would not apply to assessee’s project. For such proposition, he relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v/s Sarkar Builders, 375 ITR 392 (SC). Learned Authorised Representative submitted, even assuming that the amended provisions will apply to the assessee, still assessee would be eligible to avail deduction under section 80IB(10) in view of CBDT notification no.67 of 3rd August 2010, as the notification would apply retrospectively. It was submitted, as the assessee has carried ou…

ITO 25(2)(2)), Mumbai vs. Prathmesh Realtors, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed on the afore-said terms

ITA 3382/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jun 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3382/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Income Tax Officer-25(2)(2), Prathmesh Realtors बनाम/ C-11, Bldg., Room No. 106, A-101, Sweta Park, Daulat Nagar Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Kurla Complex, Road No. 2, Borivali (E), Vs. Bandra(E), Mumbai-51 Mumbai-400 066 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaifp 8580 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Pandian ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Tarun Ghia सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 16.03.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 10.06.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Revenue Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-35, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 14.2.2014, Partly Allowing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting Its Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2010-11 Vide Order Dated 12.3.2013. 2. The First Issue Under Appeal (Raised Vide Grounds 1 & 2) Is The Validity Or Otherwise In Law Of The Proportionate Deduction To The Assessee’S, A Builder & Developer, Housing Project By The Name ‘Prathmesh Heritage’, At Mira Road (E)

For Appellant: Shri S. PandianFor Respondent: Shri Tarun Ghia
Section 143(3)Section 80

…ved by the local authority and there is no question of allowing deduction to the part of the project.’ [emphasis, ours] Further still, the said understanding by the Hon'ble Court stands approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Sarkar Builders [2015] 375 ITR 392 (SC), with the dictum of non-deduction on or with reference to a part of the project, rather, follows 3 ITO vs. Prathmesh Realtors that of the entire project being a single project. The conditions for eligibility are, it may be appreciated, qualifying conditions and, therefore, operate cumulatively. So, however, the tribunal per its’ decision in…

The Commissioner of Income tax - III vs. M/s. Namala Estates

ITTA/383/2010HC Telangana09 Jun 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Swatantra Land and Finance Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 568/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Anima Banwal, Sr. DR
Section 145Section 80I

…t permissible under the Development Control Regulations framed by the respective local authority and that clause (d) inserted in section 80IB(10) w.e.f. 1st April, 2005 was prospective and not retrospective. The Ld. AR also relied on CIT vs Sankar Builders 375 ITR 392 (S.C.) for the same proposition. It was submitted that in the light of these judgments, the claim of deduction u/s 80IB could not be denied I.T.A. No. 143/D/2010 & 568/2010 Assessment Year 2006-07 on the ground that the commercial category exceeded the prescribed limits. 9. On ground no. 2 of the assessee’s appeal, the Ld. AR submitted that…

Swatantra Land & Finance Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 143/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Anima Banwal, Sr. DR
Section 145Section 80I

…t permissible under the Development Control Regulations framed by the respective local authority and that clause (d) inserted in section 80IB(10) w.e.f. 1st April, 2005 was prospective and not retrospective. The Ld. AR also relied on CIT vs Sankar Builders 375 ITR 392 (S.C.) for the same proposition. It was submitted that in the light of these judgments, the claim of deduction u/s 80IB could not be denied I.T.A. No. 143/D/2010 & 568/2010 Assessment Year 2006-07 on the ground that the commercial category exceeded the prescribed limits. 9. On ground no. 2 of the assessee’s appeal, the Ld. AR submitted that…

DCIT, Circle-8, Kolkata vs. M/S. R.D. Estates & Resources Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and cross objections of the assessee are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 1343/KOL/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 May 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: : Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri K.K Chaparia, FCA, ld.ARFor Respondent: none appeared
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80I

…to dispose off the appeals after hearing the Learned AR and after perusing the materials available on record. The Learned AR stated that the issue is covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Sarkar Builders reported in (2015) 375 ITR 392 (SC) and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the appeals of the revenue. He further argued that the cross objection of the assessee is with regard to assumption of jurisdiction within the meaning of section 147 of the Act. He further submitted that since the issue is settled in favour of the assessee on merits, the cross objections of assessee ar…

Ramprasd Agarwal, Thane vs. ITO WD 2(2), Thane

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and both the cross appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 874/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2008-2009

For Appellant: Shri. Virag H. ShahFor Respondent: Shri. B.S. Bist
Section 143(2)Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R.BASKARAN (AM) AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM) Assessment Year: 2008-2009 Shri. Ramprasad Agarwal, The CIT(Appeals)-I, Gr. Flr., Vrindavan, Vardaan, 9th Floor, MIDC, Salasar Brijbhoomi, Wagle Industrial Estate, Temba Hospital Road, Vs. Thane. Bhayander(W), Thane- 401101. PAN: AAOPA2405P (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No 1108 & 1773/MUM/2013 Assessment Year: 2008-2009 & 2009-10 The ITO Wd. 2(2), Shri. Ramprasad Agarwal, Room No. 26/B, Ashar IT Park, Gr. Flr., Vrindavan, Road No. 16Z, Wagle Estate, Salasar Brijbhoomi, Thane- 400604. Vs. Tem…

Ramprasad Agarwal, Mumbai vs. ITO Cen Thane, Thane

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and both the cross appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 866/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2008-2009

For Appellant: Shri. Virag H. ShahFor Respondent: Shri. B.S. Bist
Section 143(2)Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R.BASKARAN (AM) AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM) Assessment Year: 2008-2009 Shri. Ramprasad Agarwal, The CIT(Appeals)-I, Gr. Flr., Vrindavan, Vardaan, 9th Floor, MIDC, Salasar Brijbhoomi, Wagle Industrial Estate, Temba Hospital Road, Vs. Thane. Bhayander(W), Thane- 401101. PAN: AAOPA2405P (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No 1108 & 1773/MUM/2013 Assessment Year: 2008-2009 & 2009-10 The ITO Wd. 2(2), Shri. Ramprasad Agarwal, Room No. 26/B, Ashar IT Park, Gr. Flr., Vrindavan, Road No. 16Z, Wagle Estate, Salasar Brijbhoomi, Thane- 400604. Vs. Tem…

ITO WD 2(2), Thane vs. Ramprasad Agarwal, Thane

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and both the cross appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1773/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2008-2009

For Appellant: Shri. Virag H. ShahFor Respondent: Shri. B.S. Bist
Section 143(2)Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R.BASKARAN (AM) AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM) Assessment Year: 2008-2009 Shri. Ramprasad Agarwal, The CIT(Appeals)-I, Gr. Flr., Vrindavan, Vardaan, 9th Floor, MIDC, Salasar Brijbhoomi, Wagle Industrial Estate, Temba Hospital Road, Vs. Thane. Bhayander(W), Thane- 401101. PAN: AAOPA2405P (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No 1108 & 1773/MUM/2013 Assessment Year: 2008-2009 & 2009-10 The ITO Wd. 2(2), Shri. Ramprasad Agarwal, Room No. 26/B, Ashar IT Park, Gr. Flr., Vrindavan, Road No. 16Z, Wagle Estate, Salasar Brijbhoomi, Thane- 400604. Vs. Tem…

ITO Cen ( Thane), Thane vs. Ramprasad Agarwal, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and both the cross appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1108/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2008-2009

For Appellant: Shri. Virag H. ShahFor Respondent: Shri. B.S. Bist
Section 143(2)Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R.BASKARAN (AM) AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM) Assessment Year: 2008-2009 Shri. Ramprasad Agarwal, The CIT(Appeals)-I, Gr. Flr., Vrindavan, Vardaan, 9th Floor, MIDC, Salasar Brijbhoomi, Wagle Industrial Estate, Temba Hospital Road, Vs. Thane. Bhayander(W), Thane- 401101. PAN: AAOPA2405P (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No 1108 & 1773/MUM/2013 Assessment Year: 2008-2009 & 2009-10 The ITO Wd. 2(2), Shri. Ramprasad Agarwal, Room No. 26/B, Ashar IT Park, Gr. Flr., Vrindavan, Road No. 16Z, Wagle Estate, Salasar Brijbhoomi, Thane- 400604. Vs. Tem…

ACIT, Cent. Cir.2, Thane vs. Sai Home Makers, Navi Mumbai

In the result, assessee‟s appeals are allowed

ITA 6144/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri Subodh RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: Shri Manjunathan Swamy
Section 153ASection 80I

…striction imposed under the said clause would not apply to assessee‟s project even though the project might have been completed after 1st April 2005. For such proposition, he relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v/s Sarkar Builders, [2015] 375 ITR 392 (SC). As far as the residential building is concerned, learned Authorised Representative submitted, assessee having fulfilled the conditions of section 80IB(10), is eligible to claim deduction under section 80IB(10), for all the flats constructed in the residential portion including Flats no.C–101 and C–102. 7. We have considered the submissions…

I.T.O. WD 1(3), Thane vs. Astavinayaka Developers, Thane

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7266/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

For Appellant: Shri Subodh RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: Shri Somanath S. Ukkali
Section 80I

…section 80IB(10)(a) prescribing the condition for obtaining completion certificate was inserted by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2004 w.e.f. 1.4.2005 and the same shall not have retrospective application as held in the following cases:- (a) CIT Vs. Sarkar Builders (375 ITR 392)(SC) (b) CIT Vs. CHD Developers Ltd (362 ITR 177)(Delhi) (c) CIT Vs. Jain Housing & Construction Ltd (256 CTR 408)(Mad) Accordingly he submitted that the non-production of completion certificate will not disentitle the assessee from claiming deduction u/s 80IB(10), since the approval was granted to it prior to the introduction of explanation. 6.…

Kamala Brothers, Mumbai vs. ITO 24(2)1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, and assessee’s appeal as well as and CO filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1160/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2003-04 Kamala Brothers, Ito 24(2)(1) Kuber Chamber, Cts बनाम/ C-13 Bandra Kurla 141-A, Next To Cod, Complex, Bandra(E) Vs. Dutt Mandir Road, Mumbai Malad (E) Mumbai -400097 (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aaafk0111D Assessment Year: 2003-04 Ito 24(2)(1) Kamala Brothers, C-13 Bandra Kurla Kuber Chamber, Cts 141- बनाम/ Complex, Bandra(E) A, Next To Cod, Dutt Vs. Mumbai Mandir Road, Malad (E) Mumbai -400097 (Revenue) (Respondent) P.A. No. Aaafk0111D C.O. No.180/Mum/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1334/Mum/2011) Assessment Year: 2003-04

Section 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 50C

…liance in this regard has been rightly placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Happy Home Enterprise 372 ITR 1 (BOM) which has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in a subsequent judgment in the case of CIT vs Sarkar Builders 375 ITR 392. These judgments apply on the facts of the case before us. 16.5. It is further noted by us that Ld. CIT(A) has observed that it was wrongly presumed by the AO that construction and development activity was carried out on a plot which was less than one acre. It has also been held by him that housing project was consolidated project that was appro…

Kamala Brothers, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 24(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, and assessee’s appeal as well as and CO filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1140/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2003-04 Kamala Brothers, Ito 24(2)(1) Kuber Chamber, Cts बनाम/ C-13 Bandra Kurla 141-A, Next To Cod, Complex, Bandra(E) Vs. Dutt Mandir Road, Mumbai Malad (E) Mumbai -400097 (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aaafk0111D Assessment Year: 2003-04 Ito 24(2)(1) Kamala Brothers, C-13 Bandra Kurla Kuber Chamber, Cts 141- बनाम/ Complex, Bandra(E) A, Next To Cod, Dutt Vs. Mumbai Mandir Road, Malad (E) Mumbai -400097 (Revenue) (Respondent) P.A. No. Aaafk0111D C.O. No.180/Mum/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1334/Mum/2011) Assessment Year: 2003-04

Section 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 50C

…liance in this regard has been rightly placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Happy Home Enterprise 372 ITR 1 (BOM) which has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in a subsequent judgment in the case of CIT vs Sarkar Builders 375 ITR 392. These judgments apply on the facts of the case before us. 16.5. It is further noted by us that Ld. CIT(A) has observed that it was wrongly presumed by the AO that construction and development activity was carried out on a plot which was less than one acre. It has also been held by him that housing project was consolidated project that was appro…

Kamala Brothers, Mumbai vs. ITO 24(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, and assessee’s appeal as well as and CO filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1139/MUM/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2003-04 Kamala Brothers, Ito 24(2)(1) Kuber Chamber, Cts बनाम/ C-13 Bandra Kurla 141-A, Next To Cod, Complex, Bandra(E) Vs. Dutt Mandir Road, Mumbai Malad (E) Mumbai -400097 (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aaafk0111D Assessment Year: 2003-04 Ito 24(2)(1) Kamala Brothers, C-13 Bandra Kurla Kuber Chamber, Cts 141- बनाम/ Complex, Bandra(E) A, Next To Cod, Dutt Vs. Mumbai Mandir Road, Malad (E) Mumbai -400097 (Revenue) (Respondent) P.A. No. Aaafk0111D C.O. No.180/Mum/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1334/Mum/2011) Assessment Year: 2003-04

Section 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 50C

…liance in this regard has been rightly placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Happy Home Enterprise 372 ITR 1 (BOM) which has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in a subsequent judgment in the case of CIT vs Sarkar Builders 375 ITR 392. These judgments apply on the facts of the case before us. 16.5. It is further noted by us that Ld. CIT(A) has observed that it was wrongly presumed by the AO that construction and development activity was carried out on a plot which was less than one acre. It has also been held by him that housing project was consolidated project that was appro…

Four Dimensions Securities (I) Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 4(1), Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 1011/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S Four Dimensions Addl. Commissioner Of Securities (India) Ltd. Income Tax, Range-4(1), बनाम/ 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, Mumbai Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F Assessment Year: 2005-06 Addl. Commissioner Of M/S Four Dimensions Income Tax, Range-4(1), Securities (India) Ltd. बनाम/ 6Th Floor,Aayakar Bhavan, 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Fort, Mumbai (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S Four Dimensions Addl. Commissioner Of Securities (India) Ltd. Income Tax, Range-4(1), बनाम/ 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, Mumbai Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 94(7)

…s. Our attention was invited to order of the Tribunal of earlier year (ITA No.7951/Mum/2010). The crux of argument is that once the transaction is completed, which is irreversible, how the assessee can comply with law. Reliance was placed upon the decision in 375 ITR 392 (SC) by claiming that the case of the assessee is much better than the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as even theoretical possibility is not there in the case of the assessee. 2.1. On the other hand, the ld. DR, Ms. R.M. Madhvi, strongly defended the conclusion arrived at in the impugned order by contending that the assessee was aware…

DCIT -4(1), Mumbai vs. Four Dimension Securities (I) Ltd, Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 790/MUM/2009[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2015AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S Four Dimensions Addl. Commissioner Of Securities (India) Ltd. Income Tax, Range-4(1), बनाम/ 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, Mumbai Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F Assessment Year: 2005-06 Addl. Commissioner Of M/S Four Dimensions Income Tax, Range-4(1), Securities (India) Ltd. बनाम/ 6Th Floor,Aayakar Bhavan, 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Fort, Mumbai (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S Four Dimensions Addl. Commissioner Of Securities (India) Ltd. Income Tax, Range-4(1), बनाम/ 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, Mumbai Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 94(7)

…s. Our attention was invited to order of the Tribunal of earlier year (ITA No.7951/Mum/2010). The crux of argument is that once the transaction is completed, which is irreversible, how the assessee can comply with law. Reliance was placed upon the decision in 375 ITR 392 (SC) by claiming that the case of the assessee is much better than the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as even theoretical possibility is not there in the case of the assessee. 2.1. On the other hand, the ld. DR, Ms. R.M. Madhvi, strongly defended the conclusion arrived at in the impugned order by contending that the assessee was aware…

Four Dimensions Securities (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 4(1), Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 322/MUM/2009[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2015AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S Four Dimensions Addl. Commissioner Of Securities (India) Ltd. Income Tax, Range-4(1), बनाम/ 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, Mumbai Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F Assessment Year: 2005-06 Addl. Commissioner Of M/S Four Dimensions Income Tax, Range-4(1), Securities (India) Ltd. बनाम/ 6Th Floor,Aayakar Bhavan, 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Fort, Mumbai (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S Four Dimensions Addl. Commissioner Of Securities (India) Ltd. Income Tax, Range-4(1), बनाम/ 29, Bank Street, 1St Floor, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, Mumbai Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacf1734F

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 94(7)

…s. Our attention was invited to order of the Tribunal of earlier year (ITA No.7951/Mum/2010). The crux of argument is that once the transaction is completed, which is irreversible, how the assessee can comply with law. Reliance was placed upon the decision in 375 ITR 392 (SC) by claiming that the case of the assessee is much better than the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as even theoretical possibility is not there in the case of the assessee. 2.1. On the other hand, the ld. DR, Ms. R.M. Madhvi, strongly defended the conclusion arrived at in the impugned order by contending that the assessee was aware…