Emgeen Holdings (P) Ltd. v. DCIT

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

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

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

…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 relied on the order of the Tribunal in case of Emgreen Holiday P Ltd (47 SOT 98) (Mum Trib) and Apex Court Judgment in the case of Veena Developers (277 ITR 392). At the end of the hearing proceedings, Ld Counsel submitted that there is no area violation and the report of the DVO supports to the assessee. Regarding ownership related violation, there are decisions to support the legal proposition that the provisions of said cla…

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. JIVESH DEVELOPERS & PROPERTIES P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue‟s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

…Pvt. Ltd. v) DCIT v/s Magarpatta Township Development & Construction Co. Ltd., 141 ITD 682 (Pune); vi) Poddar & Ashish Developers v/s ITO, 152 ITD 117 (Mum.); vii) Baba Promoters & Developers v/s ITO, 54 SOT 89 (Mum.) viii) Emgeen Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v/s DCIT, 47 SOT 98 (Mum.); & ix) ACIT v/s Sincity Housing, ITA no.5183/Mum./2014. 19. We have considered rival submissions and perused materials on record. We have also applied our mind to the decisions relied upon by both the parties. At the very outset, we have to address the contention of the learned Departmental Representative regarding alleged violation of rule…

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

The appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

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) ..

…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 relied on the order of the Tribunal in case of Emgreen Holiday P Ltd (47 SOT 98) (Mum Trib) and Apex Court Judgment in the case of Veena Developers (277 ITR 392). At the end of the hearing proceedings, Ld Counsel submitted that there is no area violation and the report of the DVO supports to the assessee. Regarding ownership related violation, there are decisions to support the legal proposition that the provisions of said cla…

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)

…by the occupants themselves, the assessee cannot be held liable as the assessee was not having any control over the flats. Reliance was placed upon the decision in Haware Construction Pvt. Ltd. vs ITO 64 DTR 251 (Mum. Trib.), Emgeen Holdings Pvt. ltd. vs DCIT 47 SOT 98 (Mum. Trib.) and in DCIT vs Magarpatta Township Development & Construction Company ITA No.822/Pn/2011. In reply, the ld. DR, placed heavy reliance upon the advertisement and the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 2.2. We are usefully reproducing hereunder certain findings/conclusions from the decision from Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the cas…

DCIT (OSD-II) C RG 7, MUMBAI vs. SKYLINE RESIDENCYH P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.6910&6912/Mum/2011 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2007-08 & 2008-09) M/S Skyline Residency Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit-(Osd)-Ii, Central Range-7, 4Th Floor, Aykar Acme Compound, Premier Road, Ghatkopar (West), Bhavan, Mumbai Mumbai-400086 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aabcj 2532 L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.7311&7312/Mum/2011 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2007-08 & 2008-09) Dcit-(Osd)-Ii, Central Vs. M/S Skyline Residency Pvt. Range-7, 4Th Floor, Aykar Ltd., Acme Compound, Bhavan, Mumbai Premier Road, Ghatkopar (West), Mumbai-400086 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aabcj 2532 L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Manjunatha R. Swamy सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 29/10/2015 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 16/12/2015 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A), Mumbai, For The Assessment Years 2007-08 & 2008-09, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.143(3) Of The I.T.Act. 2. Common Grounds Have Been Taken In Both The Years Under Consideration, Therefore, Appeals For Both The Years Were Heard Together

…the CIT(A) directed the AO to allow proportionate deduction u/s.80IB(10). Against the order of CIT(A), both assessee and revenue are in appeals before us. 4. Ld. AR placed on record order of Mumbai Tribunal “J” Bench in the case of Emgeen Holdings Pvt. Ltd., 47 SOT 98, wherein it was held that prior to A.Y.2010-2011, deduction u/s.80IB(10) cannot be declined as long as residential unit has less than specified area as per duly approved plan and is capable of being used for residential purposes on stand alone basis. It was further held that merely because the end user, by buying more than one such unit in the name…

SKYLINE RESIDENCY P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (OSD II) CEN RG 7, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.6910&6912/Mum/2011 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2007-08 & 2008-09) M/S Skyline Residency Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit-(Osd)-Ii, Central Range-7, 4Th Floor, Aykar Acme Compound, Premier Road, Ghatkopar (West), Bhavan, Mumbai Mumbai-400086 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aabcj 2532 L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.7311&7312/Mum/2011 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2007-08 & 2008-09) Dcit-(Osd)-Ii, Central Vs. M/S Skyline Residency Pvt. Range-7, 4Th Floor, Aykar Ltd., Acme Compound, Bhavan, Mumbai Premier Road, Ghatkopar (West), Mumbai-400086 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aabcj 2532 L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Manjunatha R. Swamy सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 29/10/2015 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 16/12/2015 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A), Mumbai, For The Assessment Years 2007-08 & 2008-09, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.143(3) Of The I.T.Act. 2. Common Grounds Have Been Taken In Both The Years Under Consideration, Therefore, Appeals For Both The Years Were Heard Together

…the CIT(A) directed the AO to allow proportionate deduction u/s.80IB(10). Against the order of CIT(A), both assessee and revenue are in appeals before us. 4. Ld. AR placed on record order of Mumbai Tribunal “J” Bench in the case of Emgeen Holdings Pvt. Ltd., 47 SOT 98, wherein it was held that prior to A.Y.2010-2011, deduction u/s.80IB(10) cannot be declined as long as residential unit has less than specified area as per duly approved plan and is capable of being used for residential purposes on stand alone basis. It was further held that merely because the end user, by buying more than one such unit in the name…

SKYLINE RESIDENCY P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (OSD II) CEN RG -7, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.6910&6912/Mum/2011 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2007-08 & 2008-09) M/S Skyline Residency Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit-(Osd)-Ii, Central Range-7, 4Th Floor, Aykar Acme Compound, Premier Road, Ghatkopar (West), Bhavan, Mumbai Mumbai-400086 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aabcj 2532 L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.7311&7312/Mum/2011 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2007-08 & 2008-09) Dcit-(Osd)-Ii, Central Vs. M/S Skyline Residency Pvt. Range-7, 4Th Floor, Aykar Ltd., Acme Compound, Bhavan, Mumbai Premier Road, Ghatkopar (West), Mumbai-400086 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aabcj 2532 L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Manjunatha R. Swamy सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 29/10/2015 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 16/12/2015 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A), Mumbai, For The Assessment Years 2007-08 & 2008-09, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.143(3) Of The I.T.Act. 2. Common Grounds Have Been Taken In Both The Years Under Consideration, Therefore, Appeals For Both The Years Were Heard Together

…the CIT(A) directed the AO to allow proportionate deduction u/s.80IB(10). Against the order of CIT(A), both assessee and revenue are in appeals before us. 4. Ld. AR placed on record order of Mumbai Tribunal “J” Bench in the case of Emgeen Holdings Pvt. Ltd., 47 SOT 98, wherein it was held that prior to A.Y.2010-2011, deduction u/s.80IB(10) cannot be declined as long as residential unit has less than specified area as per duly approved plan and is capable of being used for residential purposes on stand alone basis. It was further held that merely because the end user, by buying more than one such unit in the name…

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

…dated 30/05/2011. Even otherwise, the assessee is following project completion method and fulfilled the required conditions before handing over the completed project to the purchasers/occupants. The ratio laid down in Emgeen Holdings Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT (2011) 47 SOT 98 (Mum.) order dated 29/07/2011 further supports the case of the assessee. 16 M/s Vardhan Builders In view of the undisputed facts, available on record and the judicial pronouncements discussed hereinabove, we find no infirmity in the conclusion drawn by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). His stand is affirmed resulting into dismissal of…