Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Gopal Das Estates & Housing (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 147, Section 14A, Section 195, Section 37(1), Section 40(a)(ia), Section 148.

Gopal Das Estates & Housing (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax

Q: How many judgments cite Gopal Das Estates & Housing (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax?

14 judgments on BharatTax cite Gopal Das Estates & Housing (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (103 Taxmann.com 334), spanning 2019 to 2025.

103 Taxmann.com 334High Court2019#8093 most cited

What is Gopal Das Estates & Housing (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax authority for?

Expenditure incurred on advertising is necessary for the promotion of business and should be allowed as a business expenditure, not forming part of project cost.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Gopal Das Estates & Housing (P.) Ltd. v. CIT · business expenditure · advertising expenses · promotion of business · business expediency · section 37(1) · project cost

Sections most often in play

Section 147 Section 14A Section 195 Section 37(1)Section 40(a)(ia)Section 148

Issues it is cited on

interest on interest statutory dues disallowance under section 40(a)(ia)percentage completion method interest free advances disallowance of interest expenditure business expediency section 195 revenue expenditure principal commissioner of income-tax disallowance under section 14a capital expenditure

Judgments citing Gopal Das Estates & Housing (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Noida vs. M/S Bright Buildtech Pvt. Ltd, Delhi

ITA 1244/DEL/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Dec 2025

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhijeet Kumar, Sr. DR

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES ‘E’: NEW DELHI. BEFORE SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1244/Del/2025 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) DCIT, vs. M/s. Bright Buildtech Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle 1, Noida Flat No.14, Ground Floor, DDA MIG Suraj Apartment, PulPehladPur, New Delhi – 110 044. (PAN :AACCB7981J) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Rohit Kapoor, Advocate Shri Virsain Aggarwal, AR REVENUE BY : Shri Abhijeet Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 09.10.2025 Date of Order : 22.12.2025 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Noida vs. M/S Bright Buildtech Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

ITA 1240/DEL/2025[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Dec 2025

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhijeet Kumar, Sr. DR

ACIT-CC-7(3), Mumbai vs. Bellissimo Healthy Constructions and Developers Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands Dismissed

ITA 1483/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth,ARFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui (Sr. AR)

Section 143(3)

…erein at Para 2.4(b) it is provided that selling costs are not to be considered as part of the construction costs and development costs. Further, we find that the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Gopal Das Estates & Housing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2019) 412 ITR 489 (Del), had observed, that that the expenditure incurred on advertising being necessary for promotion of its business is to be allowed as a business expenditure and would not form part of the project cost. Apart from that, we find that as the assessee’s claim for deduction of sales promotion, advertisement etc. was consistently allowed by the depa…

Preeti Goyal, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-31, New Delhi

ITA 1240/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Feb 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhijeet Kumar, Sr. DR

Assotech Moonshine Urban Developers Pvt. Ltd., Noida vs. ACIT, Circle- 3(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 366/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Ms. Rano Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Zafarul Haque Tanweer, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 156Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

…have been debited to the profit and loss account for the year. 7. The Ld. AR relied on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Somnath Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 494/2018 dated 13.10.2022; Gopal Das Estate and Housing Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (2019) 412 ITR 489 (Del); CIT vs. Mangal Tirth Estate Ltd. (2008) 303 ITR 366 (Mad) and Tribunal’s decision in PCIT vs. Puma Realtors Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 488/2019) dated 13.05.2019 (Del). 8. The Ld. CIT-DR relied upon the order of the Ld. AO duly approved by the Hon’ble DRP. 9. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the records. The facts a…

DCIT, Mumbai vs. Sentinel Properties Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of ld AO is dismissed

ITA 2130/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Sentinel Properties Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Cir-14(3)(2) 759/34, Bhosale Pavillion, Room No. 1905, 19Th Floor, Air Bhandarkar Road, Deccan India Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Gymkhana, Mumbai-400021 Maharashtra-411004 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aakcs7147K Assessee By : Shri. Sanjay N. Kapadia Ca Revenue By : Shri. Kishor Dhule, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.10 .2023

For Appellant: Shri. Sanjay N. Kapadia CAFor Respondent: Shri. Kishor Dhule, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 143

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JM Sentinel Properties Pvt. Ltd. DCIT, Cir-14(3)(2) 759/34, Bhosale Pavillion, Room No. 1905, 19th Floor, Air Bhandarkar Road, Deccan India Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Gymkhana, Mumbai-400021 Maharashtra-411004 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AAKCS7147K Assessee by : Shri. Sanjay N. Kapadia CA Revenue by : Shri. Kishor Dhule, CIT DR Date of hearing: 04.10.2023 Date of pronouncement : 27.10 .2023 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM: 01. This appeal is filed by The Deputy Commissioner Of…

M/S. Beau Jhelum Traders and Developers Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. ACIT, Circle - 1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1089/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaiana Bhatia, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, CIT (DR)

Section 37

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment year : 2017-18 M/s Beau Jhelum Traders and Vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Developers Pvt. Ltd., Tax, No.414, 3rd Cross, Circle-1(1)(2), SG Palya, Lavelle Road, Bangalore. Bangalore-560 029. PAN – AACCB 4201 B APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Ms. Sunaiana Bhatia, C.A Revenue by : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, CIT (DR) Date of hearing : 04.07.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 31.08.2023 O R D E R Per Beena Pillai, Judicial Member The present appeal arises ou…

ACIT Cent. Cir 6(4), Mumbai vs. Airmid Real Estate Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2378/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanvk-Vk-La- 2378@Eaqcbz@2021 ¼Fu-Oa- 2017&18½ Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cc-6(4) Room No.1925, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point ..... Vihykfkhz/Appellant Mumbai-400 0021 Cuke Vs. Airmid Real Estate Limited M-62 & 63, 1St Floor, Cannaught Place, New Delhi Delhi-110 001 ..... Izfroknh/Respondent Pan No. Aagca3346L

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. AR izfroknh }kjk@For Respondent: Shri K. Gopal, Advocate

Section 37

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण eqacbZ ihB ß,Þ eaqcbZ Jh fodkl voLFkh] U;kf;d lnL;],oa Jh ,l- fjQkSj] ys[kkdkj lnL; ds le{k IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A” BENCH BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER vk-vk-la- 2378@eaqcbZ@2021 ¼fu-oa- 2017&18½ Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-6(4) Room No.1925, 19th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point ..... vihykFkhZ/Appellant Mumbai-400 0021 cuke Vs. Airmid Real Estate Limited M-62 & 63, 1st Floor, Cannaught Place, New Delhi Delhi-110 001 ..... izfroknh/Respondent PAN No. AAGCA3346L vihykFkhZ }kjk@Appellan…

Gopal Das Estates & Housing Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 2576/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 23

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “C” BENCH: NEW DELHI (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) BEFORE SHRI G.S.PANNU, PRESIDENT & SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.2576/Del/2015 & 2523/Del/2017 [Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13] Gopal Das Estates & Housing Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT 16th Floor, Dr. Gopal Das Bhawan, Company Circle 10(1) 28, Barakhamba Road New Delhi New Delhi-110001. PAN-AAACG0072F APPELLANT RESPONDENT [Assessment Year : 2011-12] vs DCIT Gopal Das Estates & Housing Pvt. Ltd. Circle-10(1) 16th Floor, Dr. Gopal Das Bhawan, 28, New Delhi Barakhamba Road, New Delhi PAN-AAACG0072F APPELLANT RESPONDE…

Conwood Realty P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -Circle-12(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 727/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () M/S Conwood Realty Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Cit, Circle-12(1)(2) Yashodham, D.B. House, Gen. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, 2Nd Floor, A.K. Vaidya Marg, Goregaon M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 (East), Mumbai – 400063 Pan No. Aadcc2501Q (Assessee) (Revenue) C.O. No. 55/Mum/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 6447/Mum/2019) (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit, Circle-12(1)(2) M/S Conwood Realty Pvt. Ltd. R. No. 128D, 1St Floor, Aayakar Vs. Yashodham, D.B. House, Gen. Bhavan, Churchgate, A.K. Vaidya Marg, Goregaon Mumbai 400020 (East), Mumbai – 400063 Pan No. Aadcc2501Q (Revenue) (Assessee) Assessee By : Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, A.R Revenue By : Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi, D.R Date Of Hearing : 29/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 26/10/2021

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

…by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in PCIT-3 Vs. DLF Home Developers Ltd. (2020) 114 taxman.com 98 (Del). Also, reliance was placed by the ld. A.R on the judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Gopal Das Estates & Housing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2019) 412 ITR 489 (Del). It was submitted by the ld. A.R that the Hon‟ble High Court in its aforesaid order, had observed, that the expenditure incurred on advertising being necessary for promotion of the assessee‟s business was to be allowed as a business expenditure. Accordingly, the ld. A.R drawing an analogy from the aforesaid order submitted, that on the same…

Dy CIT, CC- 7(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Macrotech Developer Ltd.(Since Lodha Estae P. Ltd. Merged With Macrotech Developers Ltd.), Mumbai

ITA 1658/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Deputy Commissioner Of Income- M/S Macrotech Developer Ltd. Tax Cc-7(3), Room No. 655, Vs. (Since Lodha Estate Pvt. Ltd. Merged With Macrotech Developer Ltd.), Aaykar Bhawan, M.K Road, 412, 17G, Vardhman Chamber, Mumbai – 400 020 Cawasji Patel Marg, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001. Pan No. Aaacl1723E (Revenue) (Assessee) Assessee By : Shri Niraj Sheth, A.R Revenue By : Shri. Rahul Raman, Cit D.R Date Of Hearing: 05/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 11/10/2021 Order Per Ravish Sood, J.M: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A)-49, Mumbai, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The A.O U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short „Act‟) Dated 29.12.2017 For A.Y 2015-16. The Revenue Has Assailed The Order Of The Cit(A) On The Following Effective Grounds Before Us : “1. Whether On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 5,26,52,120/- Made By The Assessing Officer U/S 36(1)(Iii) Of The I.T Act. 2. Whether On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 2,02,86,452/- Towards Sales Promotion Expense & Rs. 6,68,13,114/- On Account Of Advertisement Expenses Made By The Assessing Officer By Capitalizing The Same To The Work-In-Progress.” 2. Briefly Stated, The Assessee Company That Was Merged With M/S Lodha Developers Limited (Now Known As Macrotech Developers Limited) Is Engaged In The Business Of Construction & Development Of Real Estate. Return Of Income For A.Y 2015-16 Was E-Filed By The Assessee On 31.08.2015, Declaring A Loss

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth, A.RFor Respondent: Shri. Rahul Raman, CIT D.R

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

…herein at Para 2.4(b) it is provided that selling costs are not to be considered as part of the construction costs and development costs. Further, we find that the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Gopal Das Estates & Housing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2019) 412 ITR 489 (Del), had observed, that that the expenditure incurred on advertising being necessary for promotion of its business is to be allowed as a business expenditure and would not form part of the project cost. Apart from that, we find that as the assessee‟s claim for deduction of sales promotion, advertisement etc. was consistently allowed by the depa…

El El Hotels & Investments Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 918/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2021AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Nidhi Srivastava, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

…s termination of operator agreement and assessee obtaining rights to operate the hotel has to be treated as Revenue expenditure in nature:- i) Addl.CIT vs. J.S.S. (P) Ltd., (1984) 19 Taxman 521 (Delhi); ii) Gopal Das Estates & Housing (P) Ltd. vs. CIT, (2019) 412 ITR 489 (Del); iii) Shyam Buriap Company Ltd. vs. CIT (2016) 380 ITR 151 (Calcutta); iv) Bikaner Gypsums Ltd. vs. CIT (1991) 187 ITR 39; v) CIT vs. Associated Cement Companies Ltd. (1988) 172 ITR 257 (SC); vi) Empire Jute Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1980) 124 ITR 1 (SC); 14 vii) CIT vs. Ashok Leyland Ltd. (1972) 86 ITR 549 (SC); viii) Airport Authority of India v…

M/S. Unitech Realty Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 3970/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020AY 2011-12

Section 2(22)(e)Section 250

…could not be allowed as the receipts from the concerned project had already been offered to tax in the earlier assessment year. However, we find that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Gopal Das Estates & Housing Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT reported in [2019] 103 Taxmann.com 334 M/s Unitech Reality Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (Delhi) has held that in the case of an assessee following completed contract method, the expenditure incurred subsequent to the completion of the project had to be allowed as Revenue expenditure. In this case, the assessee was engaged in construction and sale of commercial space and followed com…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Vipul Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessing officer is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5145/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishivipul Ltd, Vs. Acit, Regus Rectangle, Level-4, Range-7, Rectangle-1, D-4, Commercial New Delhi Complex, Saket, New Delhi Pan: Aaaca5396C (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Vs. Vipul Ltd, Circle-26(2), Regus Rectangle, Level-4, New Delhi Rectangle-1, D-4, Commercial Complex, Saket, New Delhi Pan: Aaaca5396C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Arora, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. Hauthang, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 139Section 14Section 143Section 14ASection 41

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “D”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Vipul Ltd, Vs. ACIT, Regus Rectangle, Level-4, Range-7, Rectangle-1, D-4, Commercial New Delhi Complex, Saket, New Delhi PAN: AAACA5396C (Appellant) (Respondent) DCIT, Vs. Vipul Ltd, Circle-26(2), Regus Rectangle, Level-4, New Delhi Rectangle-1, D-4, Commercial Complex, Saket, New Delhi PAN: AAACA5396C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Rajesh Arora, CA Revenue by: Shri K. Hauthang, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 11/03/2019 Date of pronouncement 05/04/2019 O R D E R P…