Jomt Commissioner of Income Tax v. K. Raheja (P) Ltd.

Tata Housing Development Company Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT- 8(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee ITA

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S Tata Housing Vs. Dcit – 8(3)(1) Development Company Room No. 615, Ltd.,E Block, Voltas Aayakar Bhavan, Compound, Tb Kadam Mk Marg, Marg, Chinchpokli, Mumbai – 400020. Mumbai – 400033. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaact0191Q Appellant .. Respondent Dcit – 8(3)(1) Vs. M/S. Tata Housing Room No. 615, Aayakar Development Company Bhavan, Ltd.,E Block, Voltas Mk Marg, Compound, Tb Kadam Mumbai – 400020. Marg, Chinchpokli, Mumbai – 400033. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaact0191Q Appellant .. Respondent

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s Tata Housing Vs. DCIT – 8(3)(1) Development Company Room No. 615, Ltd.,E Block, Voltas Aayakar Bhavan, Compound, TB Kadam MK Marg, Marg, Chinchpokli, Mumbai – 400020. Mumbai – 400033. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. :AAACT0191Q Appellant .. Respondent DCIT – 8(3)(1) Vs. M/s. Tata Housing Room No. 615, Aayakar Development Company Bhavan, Ltd.,E Block, Voltas MK Marg, Compound, TB Kadam Mumbai – 400020. Marg, Chinchpokli, Mumbai – 400033. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं…

DCIT Cent. Cir. -5(3) (Erstwhile DCIT Cent. Cir. -36), Mumbai vs. Sumer Builders, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Blem/S. Sumer Builders V. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Central Circle – 5(3) 201, Commerce House {Erstwhile Dcit, Central Circle – 36} 140, Nm Road, Fort Room No. 1906, 19Th Floor Mumbai – 400 023 Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaafs2829R

…elf. Ld. Counsel for the assessee also relied on the judgements in the case of ACIT v. Videocon Atithi Shelters Pvt. Ltd. in ITA Nos. 3496 to 3499/Mum/2009, Wall Street Constructions Pvt. Ltd. v. JCIT [101 ITD 156 (Mum) (SB)] and JCIT v. K. Raheja Pvt. Ltd. [ 102 ITD 414 (Mumbai)] to contend that in such cases where project completion method is followed the income is to be taxed only in the year of completion of the project irrespective of the amount of receipts or expenditure during the year. 51. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further contended that the Assessee has been regularly and consistently following the P…

Sumer Builders, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Blem/S. Sumer Builders V. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Central Circle – 5(3) 201, Commerce House {Erstwhile Dcit, Central Circle – 36} 140, Nm Road, Fort Room No. 1906, 19Th Floor Mumbai – 400 023 Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaafs2829R

…elf. Ld. Counsel for the assessee also relied on the judgements in the case of ACIT v. Videocon Atithi Shelters Pvt. Ltd. in ITA Nos. 3496 to 3499/Mum/2009, Wall Street Constructions Pvt. Ltd. v. JCIT [101 ITD 156 (Mum) (SB)] and JCIT v. K. Raheja Pvt. Ltd. [ 102 ITD 414 (Mumbai)] to contend that in such cases where project completion method is followed the income is to be taxed only in the year of completion of the project irrespective of the amount of receipts or expenditure during the year. 51. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further contended that the Assessee has been regularly and consistently following the P…

DCIT 8(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tata Housing Development Co. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and cross objections filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOs. 837 & 838/MUM/2018 (A.Ys: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Dy. CIT., Circle – 8(3)(1) v. M/s. Tata Housing Development Co. Ltd., 12th Floor, Times Tower 6th Floor, Room No. 615 Senapat Bapat Marg, Lower Parel Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 013 PAN: AAACT0191Q (Appellant) (Respondent) CO. NOs. 154 & 153/MUM/2019 [ARISING OUT OF ITA NOs. 837 & 838/MUM/2018 (A.Ys: 2013-14 & 2014-15 )] M/s. Tata Housing Development Co. Ltd., v. Dy. CIT.…

DCIT 8(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tata Housing Development Co. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and cross objections filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOs. 837 & 838/MUM/2018 (A.Ys: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Dy. CIT., Circle – 8(3)(1) v. M/s. Tata Housing Development Co. Ltd., 12th Floor, Times Tower 6th Floor, Room No. 615 Senapat Bapat Marg, Lower Parel Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 013 PAN: AAACT0191Q (Appellant) (Respondent) CO. NOs. 154 & 153/MUM/2019 [ARISING OUT OF ITA NOs. 837 & 838/MUM/2018 (A.Ys: 2013-14 & 2014-15 )] M/s. Tata Housing Development Co. Ltd., v. Dy. CIT.…

Arihant Construction, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 18(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed in part

…oks of account are inconformity with the judicial pronouncements laid down by jurisdictional High Court as discussed above. As per ld. AR the same view was also taken by the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Jomt Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. K. Raheja (P) Ltd [102 ITD 414](refer para 16 to 19) and in the case of M/s Motiram Tolaram Vs. ACIT [ITA No.67731Mum/2012] order dt.10.10.2014. 7. On the other hand, ld. DR relied on the orders of lower authorities. It was argued that assessee had treated the land and the cost capitalized as work-in-progress, therefore, the AO was correct in treating the profit accrued on its…

Jaisingh Builders, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 21(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09 Jaisingh Builders, Acit-21(1) 3, Harish, 72, Dixit Road, Pratyaksha Kar बनाम/ Vile Parle (E) Bhavan 601/C-10, Vs. Mumbai-400057 Bkc, Bandra(E), Mumbai-400051 (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.Afopj6023P "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Sanjay Parikh (Ar) Shri Ajay (Dr) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 24/02/2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 16/03/2016 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order: आदेश / O R D E R Per Ashwani Taneja (): This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai- 32 {(In Short ‘Cit(A)’}, Order Dated 26.03.2014 Passed Against Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Dated 30.11.2010 For The Assessment Year 2008-09 On The Following Grounds:

…would be entitled to deduction of interest on loan u/s 36(1)(iii) in respect of interest on loan obtained for execution of said project. The reliance was also placed on the judgment of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of JCIT v. K. Raheja (P) Ltd. 102 ITD 414 (Bom) for the proposition that even, if the assessee is following completion contract method for returning of its income, its claim of finance cost as a period cost, in nature of the interest would be eligible in the year in which it incurred or accrued, in accordance with AS-7 issued by the Institute of Chartered 4 Jaisingh Builders Accountant…