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
…proved plan. On the basis of our aforesaid observations, we are of the considered view that as the aforesaid case is distinguishable on facts, therefore, the same would not assist the case of the assessee before us. (ii). CIT Vs. Tarnetar Corporation (2014) 362 ITR 174 (Guj) (a). In the aforesaid case, the fact that the assessee had completed the construction of the ―housing project‖ within the stipulated time period i.e well before 31.03.2008, was not in doubt. In fact, the assessee had not only completed the construction two years before the final date and had applied for the ―Building Use‖ (for short ―BU‖)…
