How many judgments cite Dhoomketu Builders & Development (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT?

41 judgments on BharatTax cite Dhoomketu Builders & Development (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (368 ITR 680), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Dhoomketu Builders & Development (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 139(1), Section 139(5), Section 142(1), Section 143(2), Section 145(2), Section 263.

Dhoomketu Builders & Development (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT

368 ITR 680High Court2014#2883 most cited

What is Dhoomketu Builders & Development (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT authority for?

A real estate development business is considered 'set up' when the assessee is in a position to undertake activities for the acquisition, development, and exploitation of real estate. Expenses incurred between the setting up and commencement of such a business are allowable, even if no revenue is generated or land is classified as a non-current investment.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Dhoomketu Builders & Development (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT · 368 ITR 680 · setting up of business · commencement of business · real estate developer expenses · expenses before revenue generation · allowability of pre-commencement expenditure · section 3 · revenue expenditure · section 145(2)

Sections most often in play

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 145(2)Section 263 Section 3 Section 32

Issues it is cited on

revenue expenditure business company section 14 section 143 section 143(3)india person total income document interest

Judgments citing Dhoomketu Builders & Development (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Jindal Realty Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4340/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Shri N.K.Billaiya, Am [Through Video Conferencing] आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.5057/Del/2010 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year 2007-08 Jindal Reality Pvt.Ltd. Flat No.1104, 11Th Floor, Hemkunt Chamber, 89Th Nehru Place, New Delhi. ..........अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan-Aaccd2575L Vs The Dcit, …………. ""यथ" / Respondent Circle-4(1), New Delhi-110002. अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv. & Sh. Deepesh Jain, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sh. J.K.Mishra, Cit Dr

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. J.K.Mishra, CIT DR

Section 143(3)

…table Products Ltd. vs CIT 26 ITR 151 (Bom.); Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Ltd. 91 ITR 170 (Guj.) and Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the cases of Dhoomketu Builders & Development (P.) Ltd. vs ACIT 368 ITR 680 (Del.) and in CIT vs Arcane Developers (P) Ltd. 368 ITR 627 (Del.), has held as under:- “19. Applying the above said proposition to the facts of the present case, we hold that in the case of the assessee where substantial activities were carried out by the assessee, since the date of incorporation which had culminated in raising loans, making…

Jindal Reality Pvt. Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5057/DEL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2020AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. J.K.Mishra, CIT DR

Section 143(3)

Jindal Reality Pvt. Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1408/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jun 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri O.P.Kantआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1408/Del/2011 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year-2006-07

For Respondent: Sh. J. Mishra, CIT.DR

Section 143(3)

…may commence. The business would commence when the activity which is first in point of time and which must necessarily precede all other activities. is started. 16. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Dhoomketu Builders & Development (P.) Ltd. vs ACIT 368 ITR 680 (Del.) was considering the case of a person engaged in realty business, who had participated in an auction to acquire a piece of land. It was noted that in order to bid for the land, loan was obtained from its holding company and the same was deposited as earnest money to bid for the land. However, there was no success in auction, but the interes…

M/S Maruti Inssurance Broking Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 6442/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2012-13 Maruti Insurance Broking Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-16(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aagcm8887L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate, Ms Tejasvi Jain, Ca, Ms Somya Jain, Ca Revenue By : Ms Rakhi Bimal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 11.11.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.02.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18Th October, 2016 Of The Cit(A)-6, Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company & Is Engaged In The Business Of Soliciting Motor Insurance Business. It Was Incorporated On 24.11.2010 & Applied For Grant Of Direct Broker Licence To Irda, Vide Application Dated 01.12.2010 & Was Awarded Licence As A Direct Broker Of Irda In February, 2012. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 29Th September, 2012 Declaring An Income Of Rs.23,750/- & Claiming Current Year Loss Of Rs.2,78,22,376/-.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Rakhi Bimal, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

…on as an activity, which is an essential activity in accordance with the business is started, the business must be held to be commenced. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Dhoomketu Builders & Developers (P) Ltd., 368 ITR 680 (Del), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that the acts of applying for participation in tender, borrowing of monies on interest from holding company and deposit of borrowed monies on same day as earnest money clearly established that business had been set up by the assessee in relevant year. Referring to the d…

M/S Sambhav Institutions (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-12(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1760/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR)

Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 1758 to 1760/Bang/2018 Assessment Years : 2008-09 to 2010-11 M/s. Sambhav Institutions (INDIA) Pvt. Ltd., The Income Tax # 306, 3rd Floor, Montreal Manor Officer, Shopping Street, Serpentine Vs. Ward – 12 (2), Road, Kumara Park (West), Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 020. PAN: AAKCS3106L APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Siddesh Gaddi, CA Revenue by : Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR) Date of hearing : 09.07.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 31.07.201…

M/S Sambhav Institutions (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-12(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1759/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR)

Section 271(1)(c)

M/S Sambhav Institutions (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-12(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1758/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR)

Section 271(1)(c)

Muthoot Agri Development & Hospitalities Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2249/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Muthoot Agri Development The Deputy Commissioner Of & Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., M/S Income Tax-15(2)(2), Mumbai. Vs. Varma & Varma, Chartered Accountants, E-3, Sahasram, Elankom Gardens, Sasthamangalam, Thiruvananthapuram- 695010 Pan No. Aagcm5045A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Sukhsagar Syal, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Ojha, DR

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

…on as an expenditure u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The Ld.CIT(A) has failed to consider the decision of the Hon, Delhi High Court that in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Dhoomketu Builders and Development Pvt. Ltd reported in (2014) 368 ITR 680 (Delhi) wherein it has been that in the case of real estate company, the business can be said to have been commenced on acquisition of land, since after acquisition of such land, the assessee was in a position to do business as the business has been set up. The ratio above decision has been relied on and followed by Delhi 'B' Bench of ITAT in IT…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Albasta Wholesale Services Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6546/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawal, Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawal, G.D. Agrawal, Vice G.D. Agrawal, Vice & And & Ms. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamblems. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Ms. Paramita M. Biswas, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &

Section 14Section 28Section 37

…under consideration that no business was commenced. He has also relied upon the following decisions in support of his claim :- (i) CIT Vs. ESPN Software India P.Ltd. – [2008] 301 ITR 368 (Del). (ii) CIT Vs. Dhoomketu Builders and Development P.Ltd. – [2014] 368 ITR 680 (Del). 5. He further stated that the assessee company made investment in one subsidiary company known as M/s Galactic Ventures Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘GVL’) of 10,00,00,000 Dollars on 22nd December, 2008. As per the prevailing rate of Dollar in Rupee terms, it worked out to `478,49,30,000/-. The above subsidiary was formed by the as…

DCIT, Circle- 11(1), New Delhi vs. Hms Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3289/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambledcit Vs Hms Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. Circle- 11(1) 1 Ad, Vandhana Building , New Delhi 11, Tolstoy Marg, (Appellant) New Delhi Aacch0745G (Respondent)

Section 37(1)

…e development cost and will manage the construction. It is thus evident that the business had commenced soon the aforesaid agreement had been entered into. The High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Dhoomketu Builders and Development Pvt. Ltd. reported in 368 ITR 680, in para 9 has held as under: “The Tribunal has observed that having regard to the business of the assessee, which is the development of real estates, the participation in the tender represents commencement of one activity which would enable the assessee to acquire the land for development. If the assessee is in a position to commence business t…

DCIT Cir 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. L & T Mhi Boilers P.Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 712/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.712/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2009-10) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax L & T Mhi Boilers Private Limited 3Rd Floor, L & T House, N.M.Marg, Circle-2(2)(1) बनाम/ Room No.545, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. Ballard Estate, Fort M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 098 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aabcl-2635-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Revenue By : R.P.Meena, Ld.Cit Dr Assessee By : Vijay Mehta, Ld. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 10/07/2018 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 07/09/2018 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Vijay Mehta, Ld. ARFor Respondent: R.P.Meena, Ld.CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…lowed by various courts of the country from time to time. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT v. L.G. Electronic (India) Ltd. [282 ITR 545] & CIT Vs Hughes Escorts Communications Ltd. [311 ITR 253] & also in CIT Vs. Dhoomketu Builders and Development P. Ltd. [368 ITR 680] derived ratio from the above decision. Further, Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs Axis Private Equity Limited [IT Appeal No. 1204 of 2014 30/01/2017] expressed similar view. The Ld. CIT-DR has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court rendered in Video Plaza Vs. ITO [81 Taxmann.com 359] & Hon’ble Allahabad High Court rendered in…

Ashish Land & Property Developers P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 9(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 7605/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Ashish Land & Property Ito-9(1)(4) Developers Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, 215, Atrium, 10Th Floor, Vs. New Marine Lines, Near Marriot Courtyard Hotel, Mumbai. Andheri-Kurla Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400093. Pan: Aagca2673J Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Anuj Kisnadwala (Ar) Respondent By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 01.05.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2018 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh;

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala (AR)For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 24Section 253Section 254(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

…s that the proviso to section 36(1)(iii) is not applicable to the assessee. In support of his submission, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Dhoomketu Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. (Del. HC) (368 ITR 680), decision of single bench of Jaipur Tribunal in case of ACIT vs. Aditya Propcon P. Ltd. (ITA No. 760/JP/2014) dated 30.01.2014. 7. On the other hand, the ld. DR for the Revenue supported the order of authorities below. The ld. DR further submits that as per the proviso of section 36(1)(iii) interest on money borrowed for acquiring a capital ass…

ITO, Ward - 1(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Amba High-Rise Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 2291/KOL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Apr 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2007-08 Income Tax Officer, V/S. M/S Amba High-Rise Pvt. Ward-1(1), P-7, Ltd., 68/2, Harish Chowringhee Square, Mukherjee Road, 7Th Floor, Kolkata-69 Kolkata-25 [Pan No.Aafca 7094 L] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri S.S. Gupta, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 14-02-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 27-04-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Kolkata Dated 15.09.2010. Assessment Was Framed By Ito Ward-1(1), Kolkata U/S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 31.12.2009 For Assessment Year 2007-08 By Taking The Following Effective Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. On The Fact & In The Circumstances Of The Case As Well As In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Interest Received On Bank Deposits To The Extent Of Rs.62,57,436/- As Income From Other Sources. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case As Well As In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Capital Expenditure Claimed Under The Head Loan Syndication Charges Of Rs.1,26,27,000/- 3. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Disallowance Interest Expenses Of Rs.86,90,220/- On Account Of Term Loan From Central Bank Of India Which Was Not

Section 144Section 194L

…essee. Ld. AR in support of assessee’s claim relied on the judgment of ITA No.2291/Kol/2010 A.Y. 2007-08 ITO Wd-1(1), Kol. Vs. M/s Amba High Rise Pvt. Ltd. Page 5 Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Dhomkeetu Builders & Development (P) Ltd. (2013) 368 ITR 680 (Del) and Ld. AR in support of assessee’s claim also relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries Ltd. (1973) 91 ITR 170 (Guj). In view of above Ld. AR submitted that the amount of interest income should be treated as income from business and profession. Ld. AR also relied on…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Lodhi Property Company Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4970/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri K.Narasimha Charylodhi Property Company Ltd. Vs Dcit C/O Authorized Representative Sr Circle 4(1) Batliboi & Co., Golf View New Delhi. Corporate Tower-B, Sector 42, Sector Road, Gurgaon. Aabch0299N & Dcit Vs Lodhi Property Company Ltd. Circle 4(1) C/O Authorized Representative Sr Batliboi & New Delhi. Co., Golf View Corporate Tower-B, Sector 42, Sector Road, Gurgaon. Aabch0299N Assessee By Sh. R.S. Singhvi, Ca Sh. Satyajeet Goel, Ca Revenue By Sh. Ravi Kant Gupta, Sr. Dr

Section 35Section 36Section 37(1)

…urchased a running hotel and admittedly conducted operations till October 2002, as such it cannot be said that the business of the assessee was not set up. He placed reliance on the decisions reported in CIT vs Dhumketu Builders & Development Pvt. Ltd. [2014] 368 ITR 680 (Del.); CIT vs Samsung India Electronics Ltd. [2013] 356 ITR 354 (Del.); Carefour WC & C India P. Ltd. vs DCIT [2014] 368 ITR 692 (Del.); CIT vs ESPN Software India Pvt. Ltd. [2009] 184 taxmann 452 (Del.); CIT vs Arcane Developers (P.) Ltd. [2014] 42 taxmann.com 10 (Del.); and M/s Multi Act Realty Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. vs ITO [ITA No.7274/Mum/201…

Lodhi Property Company Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4851/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Section 35Section 36Section 37(1)

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Granite Gate Properties Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 2239/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadi N Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Sapra, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha, CIT (DR)

Section 271

…can be said to have commenced in previous assessment year 2010-11 itself when the land for such project was acquired. Reliance is placed on Jurisdictional Delhi High Court judgment in the case of CIT vs. Dhoomketu Builders & Development Pvt. Ltd. reported in 368 ITR 680, in which it was held as under: “ • • • • once the land is acquired the assessee may be said to have actually commenced its business which is that of development of real estate". In our case, admittedly, land had already been acquired by the Assessee for both its housing projects known as Lotus Boulevard and Lotus Panache and for both of them e…

Joynest Prremises P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 5(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 6717/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 6717/Mum/2014 & आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 6718/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11) वष" Joynest Premises Pvt. Ltd. Ito, 5(3)(4), R. No.565 बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम Cts No.469-A, Near Jain Temple, Aayakar Bhavan, R.C. Marg, Chembur, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 071. Mumbai-400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacz 3360M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Anuj Kisnadwala ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Asghar Zain सुनवाई क" तारीख / : 08/06/2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तारीख / : 15.06.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Above Titled Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Hereinafter Referred To As The Cit(A)] Of Even Date 14.08.2014 Relevant To A.Y. 2009-10 & 2010-11 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Asghar Zain

Section 143

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 6717/Mum/2014 & आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 6718/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11) वष" Joynest Premises Pvt. Ltd. ITO, 5(3)(4), R. No.565 बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम CTS No.469-A, Near Jain Temple, Aayakar Bhavan, R.C. Marg, Chembur, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 071. Mumbai-400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. AAACZ 3360M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant b…

Aerens Builders Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2308/DEL/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri A.T. Varkeya.Y. 2005-2006 Aerens Builders P.Ltd. Vs. Dcit, C.C.8 (Now Known As Aerens Jai Realty P.Ltd.) New Delhi Kailash Colony New Delhi 110 048 Pan: Aacca 6440 P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri PC YadavFor Respondent: Shri KK Jaiswal, D.R

Section 115

…nner it might be shown in the accounts of the assessee. In this case the question was at the second stage and as such the business shall be deemed to have been commenced.” 6.4. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Arcane Developers reported in 368 ITR 627 (Del.) held that in the case of real estate business, setting up of business is complete when the assessee look around and negotiate with parties. In this case land was acquired through sister concerns and hence the business was set up. Once the business is set up revenue expenses has to be allowed and these include financial expenses as held by…

Rajasthan Enterprises P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 1(3)1, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 2124/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap (CIT-DR)

Section 3

…ess. 3. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee reiterated what has been stated before the lower authorities strong reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT v. Dhoomketu Builders and Development P.Ltd. [(2014) 368 ITR 680 (Delhi)]. It is the say of the Counsel that on identical set of facts, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has held that loan taken and participation in tender for acquisition of land would amount to setting up of the business, and therefore, expenses incurred were to be allowed as business loss. Per contra, the learned Departmental Representative co…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Dlf Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 4344/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. C. M. Garg, Jm Ita No. 4344/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Dcit, Vs M/S Dlf Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. Circle-10(1), 1-E, Naaz Cinema Complex, New Delhi Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabch8735M Assessee By : Sh. R. S. Singvi, Ca Revenue By: Smt. Parwinder Kaur, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 31.07.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.10.2015 Order Per N.K. Saini, A.M. This Is An Appeal By The Department Against The Order Dated 24.05.2012 Of The Ld. Cit(A)-Xiii, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. R. S. Singvi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Parwinder Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 4Section 5A

…authorities below and further submitted that the issue under consideration is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in 11 DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. the case of CIT Vs Dhoomketu Builders and Development Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 368 ITR 680 (Del). 11. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on the record. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the AO accepted the incurring of expenditure for business purpose, his only objection was that those expenses were capital in nature and not revenue in nature as claim…