Elegant Estates (383 ITR 49) (Bom); G v. Corporation

38 SOT 174Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2010#9973 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 10A Section 10B Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 15C Section 234B Section 234C Section 263

Judgments citing Elegant Estates (383 ITR 49) (Bom); G v. Corporation

M/S. SJR ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

ITA 484/BANG/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Aug 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Sri Bharath L., A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian S., D.R

Section 143(2)Section 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 80Section 80I

…uction under section 80-IB(10) of the Act in relation to developing and building housing projects. 7.3 In this regard, he relied on the following rulings in support of the above proposition: a. Parth Construction v. ITO (23 SOT 368); b. GV Corporation v. ITO (38 SOT 174); c. Nyati Builders Pvt. Ltd v. DCIT (ITA No.619 / PN / 2011). 7.4 Hence, he submitted that the ld. AO and CIT’s contention that section 80-IB(2) applies to the Assessee’s case is incorrect, and the addition made by the ld. AO ought to be deleted. Succession does not constitute ‘reconstruction’ or ‘splitting- up’ 7.5 The ld. A.R. further submitte…

SHRI ABHAY DARE,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 832/IND/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Abhay Dare Ito-1(1) R-18, Gtb Complex Bhopal New Market, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Adqpd5119C Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2024

Section 801BSection 801B(10)Section 80I

…Vishwas Promoters Pvt Ltd v/s ACIT(2013)29 Taxmann.com 19 (Madras) 2) CIT v/s Sreevasta Real Estate Pvt Ltd (2014) 42 Taxmann .com 329 (Madras) 3) CIT v/s Arun Excelo Foundation Pvt Ltd (2013) 29 Taxmann.com149 (Madras) 4) GV Corporation v/s ITO Mumbai (2010) 38 SOT 174 (ITAT Mumbai) 5) CIT v/s Brahma Associates (2011) 197 Taxmann 459 (Bombay)” ISSUE-11- ASSESSEE IS A BUILDER OR CONTRACTOR. It is also important to note that the section 801B(10) of the Income Tax act 1961, nowhere provides any condition that at what level transfer to the customer should be registered or even it should be registered at all. What is…

ITO 32(3)(4), MUMBAI vs. SHRIKRISHNA CHAITANYA ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4666/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Justice P P Bhatt & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Ito 32(3)(4), Mumbai Vs. M/S. Shri Krishna Chaitanya Room No.103, 1St Floor Enterprises, Bldg. No.C-10, Pratyakshakar 102, A-Wing, Radha Vilas Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex Apartment, Kandarpada, Bandra (East), Dahisar (W) Mumbai – 400 051 Mumbai – 400 008 Pan/Gir No. Abefs7379H (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Revenue By Shri Anand Mohan Assessee By None Date Of Hearing 28/09/2020 Date Of Pronouncement 06/10/2020

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 80I

…ate basis would meet the requirements of the said judgments and the principles of the natural justice. Some of the said decision relevant for the proposition of proportionate allowance of deduction includes Elegant Estates (383 ITR 49) (Bom); G V Corporation (38 SOT 174) (Mum. Trib); Nagarjun Homes (46 SOT 287) Hyd Trib etc. Further, notwithstanding the said argument, Ld Counsel also submitted that the provisions of clause (f) to section 80IB(10) of the Act are prospective in application and they will not apply to the building of Radha Govind under consideration. For this proposition, Ld Counsel for the assessee…

ITO WD 2(3), KALYAN vs. NANCY ICON BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS, ULHASNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6491/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 80I

…2016, (e) Bengal Ambuja Housing Development Ltd Vs ACIT (ACIT Vs 1595/Kol/2005) upheld by Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in IT Appeal No.458 of 2006 dated 05/01/2007, (f) Arun Excello Foundation Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT [ 108 TTJ 71 (Chen)], (g) G.V. Corporation Vs ITO [ 38 SOT 174( Mum)], (h) SJR Builder Vs ACIT [3 ITR (T) 569 (Bang)], (i) ITO Vs Air Developers [122 ITD 125(Nag)] (j) CIT Vs Global Reality [2005] 379 ITR 107 (MP). 7. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and have gone through the orders of the authorities below. During the assessment the assessing officer made reference to the department…

ACIT 25(1), MUMBAI vs. AMBER ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5176/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri, Amarjit Singh Jm Acit 25(1) Vs. M/S. Amber Enterprises Mumbai – 400 051 7, Taren Compound Behind Krishna Hotel Dahisar (E) Mumbai – 400 068 Pan/Gir No. Aalfa3071G Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 80B(10)(f)Section 80FSection 80I

…erprises in condition (c) of the section, the relief has been granted, as it is a common practice among a member of same family to join more than one residential unit to create more space for enhancing standard of living. The same has been held in the case of 38 SOT 174 (MUM) G.V Corporation vs. ITO on 29 December, 2006, It is common knowledge members of the same family who purchase separate residential units adjacent or contiguous to each other often join them by breaking down a wall or by opening a door way or in many other ways so that the entire family lives together and gets more space to live. In many cases…

SOHAM CONSTRUCTION,KALYAN vs. ITO WD 2(4), KALYAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 336/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Narendra Singh Janpangi

Section 80I

…buja Housing Development Ltd v. Asst. CIT (1TA No:1595/Ko1/2005) dated 24.03.2006 upheld by Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in IT Appeal No 458 Of 2006 dated 05.01.2007; f. Arun Excello Foundation Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT [108 TTJ 71 (Chen)]; g. G.V. Corporation v. ITO [38 SOT 174 (Mum)]; h. SJR Builders v. ACIT [3 ITR(T) 569 (Bang)]; and i. ITO v. Air Developers [122 ITD 125 (Nag)]. 18. Ld. DR submitted before us that the residential units i.e. Flat Nos. 201-202; 501-502 and 602-603 are separate units and they are assessed separately by Municipal Authorities. Since all these flats are independent and separate units they c…

ITO WD 2(4), KALYAN vs. SOHAM CONSTUCTION, BADLAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 164/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Narendra Singh Janpangi

Section 80I

ITO 25(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. SHREE KRISHNA CHAITANYA ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 3321/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Ram Lal Negiफनाभ/ Income Tax Officer-25(1)(2), M/S. Shree Krishna Chaitanya R.No.204, C-11, Pratyaksh Kar Enterprises, Vs. Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, 102, A-Wing, Radha Vilas, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Apartment, Kandarpada, Dahisar (W), Mumbai – 68. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Abeps7379H (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Saikia, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Dr. K. Shivram & Mr. Aditya

Section 133ASection 69CSection 80I

…basis would meet the requirements of the said judgments and the principles of the natural justice. Some of the said decision relevant 4 for the proposition of proportionate allowance of deduction includes Elegant Estates (383 ITR 49) (Bom); G V Corporation (38 SOT 174) (Mum. Trib); Nagarjun Homes (46 SOT 287) Hyd Trib etc. Further, notwithstanding the said argument, Ld Counsel also submitted that the provisions of clause (f) to section 80IB(10) of the Act are prospective in application and they will not apply to the building of Radha Govind under consideration. For this proposition, Ld Counsel for the assessee…

NEELKANTH PALM REALTY,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 15(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7900/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Sanjay Aroraassessment Year:2008-09 M/S Neelkanth Palm Addl.Cit, Realty Fine House, Range-(15)(3), Anandji Lane, 5Th Floor, Matru Mandir, M.G. Road, Ghatkopar (E), Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400077 Mumbai ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaefn5224B

Section 143(3)Section 80I

…286 flats but proportionate deduction u/s.80IB(10) is claimed only on 144 units having built up area below 1000 sq.ft. which is allowable as per law. In support of his contentions, learned AR relied on the following decisions :- i) G.V. Corporation Vs. ITO, 38 SOT 174(Mum); ii) ACIT Vs. Sheth Developers (P) Ltd., 33 SOT 277 (Mum); iii) Viswas Promoters (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT, 255 CTR 149; iv) SJR Builders Vs. ACIT, ITA No.1192/B/2008, dtd.21.8.2009(Bang) v) Sanghvi & Doshi Enterprise Vs. ITO, 131 ITD 151(Chennai); vi) ITO Vs. AIR Developers, 122 ITD 125 (Nag); vii) DCIT Vs. Brigade Enterprises P. Ltd., 28 SOT 7 (Ban…

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

…. DCIT (ITA No.1595/Kol/2005 & 1735/Kol/2005 dated 24.3.2006) (b) Bengal Ambuja Housing development Ltd (ITA No.458 of 2006 dated 05-01-2007) of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court. (c) ACIT Vs. Sheth Developers (P) Ltd (33 SOT 277)(Mum) (d) G.V. Corporation Vs. ITO (38 SOT 174)(Mum) (e) Poddar & Ashish Developers Vs. ITO (152 ITD 117)(Mum) (f) CIT Vs. Sreeevatsa Real Estates P Ltd (222 Taxman 105)(Mad) (g) CIT Vs. Arun Excello Foundations P Ltd (259 CTR 362)(Mad). In view of the above, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of Ld CIT(A) on this issue also. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the reven…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. OMAXE BUILDHOME (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 5373/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu Assessment Year : 2008-09 Deputy Cit, Vs. M/S. Omaxe Ltd., Central Circle-4, 7-Lsc, Omaxe House, New Delhi. Kalkaji, New Delhi. (Pan: Aaaco0171H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Omaxe Ltd., Vs. Deputy Cit, 7-Lsc, Omaxe House, Central Circle-4, Kalkaji, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aaaco0171H) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.L. Meena, CIT(DR)

Section 10ISection 4Section 80I

…y the Revenue are dismissed.” 12.13 Pro-rata deduction has similarly been held allowable in the following decisions: - Brigade Enterprises (P) Ltd.: [2009] 28-SOT-7 (Bang.) - ITO v. AIR Developers: [2010] 122 ITD 125 (Nag) - G.V. Corporation V. ITO: [2010] 38 SOT 174 (Mum.) - ACIT v. Sheth Developers (P.) Ltd.: [2009] 33-SOT-277 (Mum) - Prakruti Constructions (P) Ltd V. ITO: ITA No. 2264 & 2265/ Mum/ 2011 - Delhi Iron and Steel Pvt. Ltd in ITA No. 2497/ Del/ 2007 12.14 The Learned AR thus pointed out that the Hon’ble High Courts and various benches of the Tribunal have consistently held that proportionate de…