DCIT v. Brigade Enterprises (P.) Ltd.

119 TTJ 269Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2008#8701 most cited

What is DCIT v. Brigade Enterprises (P.) Ltd. authority for?

Where some residential units in a larger housing project qualify independently for deduction under section 80-IB(10), the deduction should be allowed on a pro-rata basis for those eligible units, rather than denying it by treating the entire project as a single unit. This applies even if the assessee did not claim the benefit for all units within the project.

12

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2021.

Also referred to as

DCIT v. Brigade Enterprises · 119 TTJ 269 · section 80IB(10) · housing project · pro rata deduction · eligible units · independent units

Judgments citing DCIT v. Brigade Enterprises (P.) Ltd.

Giridhari Constructions, Hyd, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-6(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals of the assessee and revenue are dismissed in above terms

ITA 1355/HYD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2011-12 Giridhari Constructions, Vs Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward – 6(2), Hyderabad. Pan – Aagfg 5289D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Asst. Commissioner Of Vs Giridhari Constructions, Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 14(1), Hyderabad. Pan – Aagfg 5289D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar Date Of Hearing: 05/04/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 17/09/2021 O R D E R Per L.P. Sahu, A.M.: Both These Appeals Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Are Directed Against Cit(A) - 4, Hyderabad’S Order Dated 24/09/2015 For Ay 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar
Section 143(3)Section 801Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B”: HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIRTUAL CONFERENCE) BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 Giridhari Constructions, Vs Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward – 6(2), Hyderabad. PAN – AAGFG 5289D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Asst. Commissioner of Vs Giridhari Constructions, Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 14(1), Hyderabad. PAN – AAGFG 5289D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue by: Shri Rohit Mujumdar Date of hearing: 05/04/2021 Date of…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Brigade Enterprises Ltd

In the result, we do not find any merit in this

ITA/54/2013HC Karnataka22 Sept 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 260Section 260ASection 80I

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND 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.54 OF 2013 BETWEEN: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE. 2. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-11(2), C.R. BUILDING QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.,) AND: M/S. BRIGADE ENTERPRISES LTD., PENT HOUSE, BRIGADE TOWERS NO.135, BRIGADE TOWERS BANGALORE-560025. ... RESPONDENT (BY…

DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad vs. Janapriya Engineers Syndicate Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 216/HYD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

For Appellant: Shri A. SrinivasFor Respondent: Smt. S. Narasamma
Section 40

…in the block, the assessee is entitled to claim proportionate relief against the units satisfying the extent of built-up area. 38. Similar proposition has been laid down by the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in DCIT vs. Brigade Enterprises (P.) Ltd., (2008) 119 TTJ 269 (Bang) and the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in Runwal Multihousing Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT in ITA Nos.1015, 1016 and 1017/PN/2011 relating to assessment years 2003- 04 to 2005-06, order dated 21.11.2012. Following the same parity of reasoning, we hold that the assessee is entitled to pro-rata deduction in respect of residential units in the housing proj…

DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad vs. Janapriya Engineers Syndicate Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 215/HYD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jan 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

For Appellant: Shri A. SrinivasFor Respondent: Smt. S. Narasamma
Section 40

…in the block, the assessee is entitled to claim proportionate relief against the units satisfying the extent of built-up area. 38. Similar proposition has been laid down by the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in DCIT vs. Brigade Enterprises (P.) Ltd., (2008) 119 TTJ 269 (Bang) and the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in Runwal Multihousing Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT in ITA Nos.1015, 1016 and 1017/PN/2011 relating to assessment years 2003- 04 to 2005-06, order dated 21.11.2012. Following the same parity of reasoning, we hold that the assessee is entitled to pro-rata deduction in respect of residential units in the housing proj…

Janapriya Engineers Syndicate Limited (Formerly Known As Janapriya Engineers Syndicate Pvt. Ltd.), Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1140/HYD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

For Appellant: Shri A. SrinivasFor Respondent: Smt. S. Narasamma
Section 40

…in the block, the assessee is entitled to claim proportionate relief against the units satisfying the extent of built-up area. 38. Similar proposition has been laid down by the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in DCIT vs. Brigade Enterprises (P.) Ltd., (2008) 119 TTJ 269 (Bang) and the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in Runwal Multihousing Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT in ITA Nos.1015, 1016 and 1017/PN/2011 relating to assessment years 2003- 04 to 2005-06, order dated 21.11.2012. Following the same parity of reasoning, we hold that the assessee is entitled to pro-rata deduction in respect of residential units in the housing proj…

Janapriya Engineers Syndicate Limited (Formerly Known As Janapriya Engineers Syndicate Pvt. Ltd.), Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1139/HYD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jan 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

For Appellant: Shri A. SrinivasFor Respondent: Smt. S. Narasamma
Section 40

…in the block, the assessee is entitled to claim proportionate relief against the units satisfying the extent of built-up area. 38. Similar proposition has been laid down by the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in DCIT vs. Brigade Enterprises (P.) Ltd., (2008) 119 TTJ 269 (Bang) and the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in Runwal Multihousing Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT in ITA Nos.1015, 1016 and 1017/PN/2011 relating to assessment years 2003- 04 to 2005-06, order dated 21.11.2012. Following the same parity of reasoning, we hold that the assessee is entitled to pro-rata deduction in respect of residential units in the housing proj…

The DCIT, Central Circle - 2, Hyderabad vs. M/S. Engineers Reddy P. Ltd, Hyderabad

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1485/HYD/2010[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

For Appellant: Shri A. SrinivasFor Respondent: Smt. S. Narasamma
Section 40

…in the block, the assessee is entitled to claim proportionate relief against the units satisfying the extent of built-up area. 38. Similar proposition has been laid down by the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in DCIT vs. Brigade Enterprises (P.) Ltd., (2008) 119 TTJ 269 (Bang) and the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in Runwal Multihousing Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT in ITA Nos.1015, 1016 and 1017/PN/2011 relating to assessment years 2003- 04 to 2005-06, order dated 21.11.2012. Following the same parity of reasoning, we hold that the assessee is entitled to pro-rata deduction in respect of residential units in the housing proj…

The DCIT, Central Circle - 2, Hyderabad vs. M/S. Engineers Reddy P. Ltd, Hyderabad

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1484/HYD/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jan 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

For Appellant: Shri A. SrinivasFor Respondent: Smt. S. Narasamma
Section 40

…in the block, the assessee is entitled to claim proportionate relief against the units satisfying the extent of built-up area. 38. Similar proposition has been laid down by the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in DCIT vs. Brigade Enterprises (P.) Ltd., (2008) 119 TTJ 269 (Bang) and the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in Runwal Multihousing Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT in ITA Nos.1015, 1016 and 1017/PN/2011 relating to assessment years 2003- 04 to 2005-06, order dated 21.11.2012. Following the same parity of reasoning, we hold that the assessee is entitled to pro-rata deduction in respect of residential units in the housing proj…

ACIT, Cir-33, Kolkata vs. M/S Ashiana Amar Developers, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1307/KOL/2015[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Oct 2017AY 2012-2013
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 80I

…IT (2007) 108 TTJ (Chennai) 71, the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal accepted the assessee’s plea that deduction under section 80IB(10) on the residential units constructed by the assessee be given on pro rate basis. 7.4 In the case of DCIT vs Brigade Enterprise 119 TTJ 269 Bangalore Bench of ITAT has observed in respect of claim under section 80IB under similar circumstances under:- Even though the projects of the assessee are bigger ones consisting of independent units, the assessee had claimed the benefit under section 80IB only in respect of blocks ‘A’ and ‘C’ namely ‘Mayflower’ and ‘Cassia’. In respect of other…

ITO 17(3)(5), Mumbai vs. Vardhan Builders, Mumbai

In the result it is held that the appellant is eligible for deduction u/s 80IB(10)

ITA 4081/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2016AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Ajit ShettyFor Respondent: Shri N.P.Singh
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…pment and which is more than one acre and, therefore, deduction cannot be denied on this ground – Assessee was therefore entitled to deduction under s.80- IB(10).” 22.4. We find that ITAT Bangalore Bench in the case of Dy.CIT vs. Brigade Enterprises (P) Ltd. [119 TTJ 269 (Bang.)] has observed as under: “Deduction under s.80-IB – Income from developing and building housing project – Different units of a group project – Where some of the residential units in a bigger housing project, treated independently, are eligible for relief under s.80-IB(10), relief should be given pro rata and should not be denied by treatin…

ITO 12(3)4, Mumbai vs. Vardhan Builders, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4635/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-12(3)(4), M/S Vardhan Builders, Room No.123, 1St Floor, 422, Commerce House, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 140, Nagindas Master Road, Vs. M.K.Road, Mumbai-400023 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaafv0694B Shri Chandip Singh -Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Vijay C Kothari

Section 2Section 80I

…pment and which is more than one acre and, therefore, deduction cannot be denied on this ground – Assessee was therefore entitled to deduction under s.80- IB(10).” 22.4. We find that ITAT Bangalore Bench in the case of Dy.CIT vs. Brigade Enterprises (P) Ltd. [119 TTJ 269 (Bang.)] has observed as under: “Deduction under s.80-IB – Income from developing and building housing project – Different units of a group project – Where some of the residential units in a bigger housing project, treated independently, are eligible for relief under s.80-IB(10), relief should be given pro rata and should not be denied by treatin…

Brigade Enterprises Ltd, Bangalore vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is treated as partly allowed

ITA 1275/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jul 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Abraham P Georgem/S.Brigade Enterprises Ltd., 29Th & 30Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Brigade Gateway Campus, 26/1, Dr.Rajkumar Road, Rajajinagar, Bangalore-560055. … Appellant Pan: Aaacb7459F Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Range-11, Bangalore. … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.K.Srihari, Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 10(35)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI ABRAHAM P GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s.Brigade Enterprises Ltd., 29th & 30th floor, World Trade Centre, Brigade Gateway Campus, 26/1, Dr.Rajkumar Road, Rajajinagar, Bangalore-560055. … Appellant PAN: AAACB7459F Vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax, Range-11, Bangalore. … Respondent AND Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 11(2), Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. M/s.Brigade Enterprises Ltd., Bangalore. … Respondent Assessee by: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CA. Revenue by: Dr. P.K.Srihari, Addl.CIT(DR).…