Doshi Enterprises vs ITO (2011) 60 DTR 406 (Chennai)(TM)(Trib.), ITO v. AIR

ITO 29(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. AVANI DEVELOPERS, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue has to fail in its appeal

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood: (A.Y : 2010-11)

…rcial unit also since it specifically refers to ‘residential units’ and therefore can be said to exclude commercial unit as argued. In such a situation the built up area as defined in DCR.91 may be adopted. It has also been so held in case M/s. Global Reality 134 ITD 407 (Indore) though in connection with the built up area of a residential unit but can be extended to commercial unit in view of specific definition of built up area in the Act and no such definition of commercial built up area in the Act. 3.20 As per DCR, the built up area of a basement is not to be considered as part of FSI if it confirms to the r…

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)

…d by the decision in Haware Construction Pvt. Ltd. vs ITO (2011) 64 DTR 251 (Mum), Sanghavi & Doshi Enterprises vs ITO (2011) 60 DTR 406 (Chennai)(TM)(Trib.), ITO vs AIR developers (ITA No.447/Nag/2007) order dated 21/05/2008, M/s Global Reality vs ITO (2012) 134 ITD 407 (Indore), wherein one of us (Judicial Member) is signatory to the order, holding that, once the assessee sold the flats and the purchaser merges the flats or extends the area, no fault can be found against the assessee. Identically, Hon‟ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs Vandana Properties, order dated 28/03/2012 decided in favour of the ass…

DCIT CEN CIR 9, MUMBAI vs. ACME COMBINES, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

…rchaser the role of the builder was over, that if subsequently the owners modified the internal structure of the flat no responsibility could be fixed on the builder. After considering the available material, the FAA referred to the cases of Global Realities (134 ITD 407), Haware Construction (64 DTR 251),he held that built-up area of the flats as per the ministerial regulation was l less than 1000 square feet, that the order of the AO could not be sustained. Finally he allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. 4.During the course of hearing before us the Departmental Representative (DR) left the issue to the dis…

ITO 12(3)4, MUMBAI vs. VARDHAN BUILDERS, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

…d by the decision in Haware Construction Pvt. Ltd. vs ITO (2011) 64 DTR 251 (Mum), Sanghavi & Doshi Enterprises vs ITO (2011) 60 DTR 406 (Chennai)(TM)(Trib.), ITO vs AIR developers (ITA No.447/Nag/2007) order dated 21/05/2008, M/s Global Reality vs ITO (2012) 134 ITD 407 (Indore), wherein one of us (Judicial Member) is signatory to the order, holding that, once the assessee sold the flats and the purchaser merges the flats or extends the area, no fault can be found against the assessee. Identically, Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs Vandana Properties, order dated 28/03/2012 decided in favour of the ass…