Ltd. v. ITO

64 DTR 251Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2011#3062 most cited

What is Ltd. v. ITO authority for?

The Assessing Officer accepted the assessee's claim of being in the construction business and its use of the project completion method, and the Revenue did not take remedial measures under sections 263 or 147, indicating acceptance of the assessment.

39

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Haware Constructions Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO · 64 DTR 251 · assessment procedure · construction business · project completion method · section 147 · section 263

Also reported as

133 Taxmann 14929 Taxmann.com 81

Sections most often in play

Section 14ASection 115JBSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 143(3A)Section 144BSection 144C(13)

Issues it is cited on

section 14(2)section 35dsection 14a(2)non application of mindsection 40a(2)associated enterprisesdisallowance u/s 14aassociated enterprisesection 115jbdispute resolution panelsection 44section 14a

Judgments citing Ltd. v. ITO

J and P Coats Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Circle 1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 1365/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. V. Arvind, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Appeal Nos. and Appellant Respondent Assessment Year IT(IT)A M/s. J & P Coats Ltd., The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV, No.11/Bang/2014 C/o. Deloitte Haskins and Sells, Bengaluru. 2008-09 Anchorage-II, 100/2, Richmond Road, Bengaluru – 560 025. PAN : AAACJ 3713 G IT(TP)A -do- DCIT (International Taxation), No.382/Bang/2015 Circle – 1(1), 2010-11 Bengaluru. IT(TP)A M/s. J & P Coats Ltd., -do- No.2135/Bang/2016 1, George Square, 2012-13 Glasgow, Scotland G2 1AL, United K…

J & P Coats Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 2135/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. V. Arvind, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Appeal Nos. and Appellant Respondent Assessment Year IT(IT)A M/s. J & P Coats Ltd., The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV, No.11/Bang/2014 C/o. Deloitte Haskins and Sells, Bengaluru. 2008-09 Anchorage-II, 100/2, Richmond Road, Bengaluru – 560 025. PAN : AAACJ 3713 G IT(TP)A -do- DCIT (International Taxation), No.382/Bang/2015 Circle – 1(1), 2010-11 Bengaluru. IT(TP)A M/s. J & P Coats Ltd., -do- No.2135/Bang/2016 1, George Square, 2012-13 Glasgow, Scotland G2 1AL, United K…

J & P Coats Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 382/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. V. Arvind, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Appeal Nos. and Appellant Respondent Assessment Year IT(IT)A M/s. J & P Coats Ltd., The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV, No.11/Bang/2014 C/o. Deloitte Haskins and Sells, Bengaluru. 2008-09 Anchorage-II, 100/2, Richmond Road, Bengaluru – 560 025. PAN : AAACJ 3713 G IT(TP)A -do- DCIT (International Taxation), No.382/Bang/2015 Circle – 1(1), 2010-11 Bengaluru. IT(TP)A M/s. J & P Coats Ltd., -do- No.2135/Bang/2016 1, George Square, 2012-13 Glasgow, Scotland G2 1AL, United K…

J & P Coats Limited, U.K vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 1493/BANG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. V. Arvind, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Appeal Nos. and Appellant Respondent Assessment Year IT(IT)A M/s. J & P Coats Ltd., The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV, No.11/Bang/2014 C/o. Deloitte Haskins and Sells, Bengaluru. 2008-09 Anchorage-II, 100/2, Richmond Road, Bengaluru – 560 025. PAN : AAACJ 3713 G IT(TP)A -do- DCIT (International Taxation), No.382/Bang/2015 Circle – 1(1), 2010-11 Bengaluru. IT(TP)A M/s. J & P Coats Ltd., -do- No.2135/Bang/2016 1, George Square, 2012-13 Glasgow, Scotland G2 1AL, United K…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Victory Portfolio Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed with above direction

ITA 4500/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishivictory Portfolio Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 209, Gupta Towers, Azardpur Circle-17(1), Commercial Complex, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaafv9634K (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Vs. Victory Portfolio Ltd, Circle-17(1), 209, Gupta Towers, Azardpur New Delhi Commercial Complex, New Delhi Pan: Aaafv9634K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Smt Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143Section 14ASection 225Section 36Section 40Section 80Section 88E

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “D ”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Victory Portfolio Ltd, Vs. DCIT, 209, Gupta Towers, Azardpur Circle-17(1), Commercial Complex, New Delhi New Delhi PAN: AAAFV9634K (Appellant) (Respondent) DCIT, Vs. Victory Portfolio Ltd, Circle-17(1), 209, Gupta Towers, Azardpur New Delhi Commercial Complex, New Delhi PAN: AAAFV9634K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Ved Jain, Adv Shri Nischay Kantoor, CA Revenue by: Smt Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 27/08/2019 Date of pronouncement 25112019 O…

M/S. Victory Portfolio Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed with above direction

ITA 4267/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishivictory Portfolio Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 209, Gupta Towers, Azardpur Circle-17(1), Commercial Complex, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaafv9634K (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Vs. Victory Portfolio Ltd, Circle-17(1), 209, Gupta Towers, Azardpur New Delhi Commercial Complex, New Delhi Pan: Aaafv9634K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Smt Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143Section 14ASection 225Section 36Section 40Section 80Section 88E

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “D ”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Victory Portfolio Ltd, Vs. DCIT, 209, Gupta Towers, Azardpur Circle-17(1), Commercial Complex, New Delhi New Delhi PAN: AAAFV9634K (Appellant) (Respondent) DCIT, Vs. Victory Portfolio Ltd, Circle-17(1), 209, Gupta Towers, Azardpur New Delhi Commercial Complex, New Delhi PAN: AAAFV9634K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Ved Jain, Adv Shri Nischay Kantoor, CA Revenue by: Smt Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 27/08/2019 Date of pronouncement 25112019 O…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Indirapuram Habitat Centre Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 3225/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…) in both the Assessment Years (A.Y.) has accepted the claim of the assessee that it is in the construction business. On these facts we respectfully follow the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the ITAT in the case of Haware Constructions P. Ltd. vs. ITO (2011) 64 DTR 251, wherein it is held as follows. “There is no dispute to the fact that the assessee company is engaged in the business of construction and builders and during the A.Y. 2004- 05 the project completion method followed by the assessee has been accepted. The submission of the counsel for the assessee that the Revenue has not taken any remedial measure…

Nanji D. Patel, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(3)(3), Mumbai

ITA 5519/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. Shamim Yahya, Am& Hon’Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5519/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Hiro Rai, ARFor Respondent: Shri AarjuGarodia, DR
Section 145(3)

…the case of CIT Vrs. Bilahri Investment (P) Ltd (2008) 299 ITR 1 (SC), CIT Vrs. Millenium States Pvt. Ltd. ITXA No. 853 of 2015, CIT Vrs. Aditya Builders 378 ITR 75(Bom), Paras Buildtech India Pvt. Ltd. 382 ITR 360 (Del), HawareConsturction Pvt. Ltd. Vrs. ITO 64 DTR 251 Mum-Trib and Bhoomi Construction Projects Vrs. ACIT 44 CCH 129 Mum-Trib. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs Bilahari Investment (P) Ltd (2008) 299 ITR 1 (SC) held that "recognition/identification of income under the 1961 act is attainable by several methods of accounting. It may be noted that the same result could be attained by any one of th…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year 2006-07 is hereby allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1576/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year : 2004-05 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Acit, Central Circle-20, Ansal Housing & Construction New Delhi. Ltd., Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri S. K. Jain, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 35DSection 80I

…/s Shah Builders & Developers: ITA No. 3195 & 3I96/Murn/2010 (Dated: May 6, 2011) (Mum. Trib.) • ITO v. Velentine Developers: ITA No. 6901 & 8469/Mum/2010 (Mum. Trib.) / 31 ITR( Trib) 452: A Y 2006-07 and 2007-08 • Haware Constructions (P ) Ltd v. ITO ( 2011) 64 DTR 251 ( Mum) (Trib) • ACIT v. Magnete Enterprises: ITA No. 5802/Mum/2012 (Mum. Trib.) • ITO v. Yash Developers: ITA Nos. 809/Mum/ 2011 & 3644/Mum/2012 (Mum. Trib.) • Raj Reality v. DCIT: 152 ITD 716 (Indore Trib.) • ITO v. Kura Homes P. Ltd.: 151 ITD 31 (Hyd. Trib.) • DCIT v. Mangalam Estates: 148 ITD 446 (Chennai Trib.) • ACIT v. Sterling Estates & Pro…

The ACIT., New Delhi vs. M/S. Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year 2006-07 is hereby allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1254/DEL/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year : 2004-05 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Acit, Central Circle-20, Ansal Housing & Construction New Delhi. Ltd., Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri S. K. Jain, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 35DSection 80I

…/s Shah Builders & Developers: ITA No. 3195 & 3I96/Murn/2010 (Dated: May 6, 2011) (Mum. Trib.) • ITO v. Velentine Developers: ITA No. 6901 & 8469/Mum/2010 (Mum. Trib.) / 31 ITR( Trib) 452: A Y 2006-07 and 2007-08 • Haware Constructions (P ) Ltd v. ITO ( 2011) 64 DTR 251 ( Mum) (Trib) • ACIT v. Magnete Enterprises: ITA No. 5802/Mum/2012 (Mum. Trib.) • ITO v. Yash Developers: ITA Nos. 809/Mum/ 2011 & 3644/Mum/2012 (Mum. Trib.) • Raj Reality v. DCIT: 152 ITD 716 (Indore Trib.) • ITO v. Kura Homes P. Ltd.: 151 ITD 31 (Hyd. Trib.) • DCIT v. Mangalam Estates: 148 ITD 446 (Chennai Trib.) • ACIT v. Sterling Estates & Pro…

Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year 2006-07 is hereby allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1248/DEL/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year : 2004-05 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Acit, Central Circle-20, Ansal Housing & Construction New Delhi. Ltd., Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri S. K. Jain, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 35DSection 80I

…/s Shah Builders & Developers: ITA No. 3195 & 3I96/Murn/2010 (Dated: May 6, 2011) (Mum. Trib.) • ITO v. Velentine Developers: ITA No. 6901 & 8469/Mum/2010 (Mum. Trib.) / 31 ITR( Trib) 452: A Y 2006-07 and 2007-08 • Haware Constructions (P ) Ltd v. ITO ( 2011) 64 DTR 251 ( Mum) (Trib) • ACIT v. Magnete Enterprises: ITA No. 5802/Mum/2012 (Mum. Trib.) • ITO v. Yash Developers: ITA Nos. 809/Mum/ 2011 & 3644/Mum/2012 (Mum. Trib.) • Raj Reality v. DCIT: 152 ITD 716 (Indore Trib.) • ITO v. Kura Homes P. Ltd.: 151 ITD 31 (Hyd. Trib.) • DCIT v. Mangalam Estates: 148 ITD 446 (Chennai Trib.) • ACIT v. Sterling Estates & Pro…

Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT CC-20, New Delhi

Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year 2006-07 is hereby allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3193/DEL/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2017AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year : 2004-05 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Acit, Central Circle-20, Ansal Housing & Construction New Delhi. Ltd., Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri S. K. Jain, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 35DSection 80I

…/s Shah Builders & Developers: ITA No. 3195 & 3I96/Murn/2010 (Dated: May 6, 2011) (Mum. Trib.) • ITO v. Velentine Developers: ITA No. 6901 & 8469/Mum/2010 (Mum. Trib.) / 31 ITR( Trib) 452: A Y 2006-07 and 2007-08 • Haware Constructions (P ) Ltd v. ITO ( 2011) 64 DTR 251 ( Mum) (Trib) • ACIT v. Magnete Enterprises: ITA No. 5802/Mum/2012 (Mum. Trib.) • ITO v. Yash Developers: ITA Nos. 809/Mum/ 2011 & 3644/Mum/2012 (Mum. Trib.) • Raj Reality v. DCIT: 152 ITD 716 (Indore Trib.) • ITO v. Kura Homes P. Ltd.: 151 ITD 31 (Hyd. Trib.) • DCIT v. Mangalam Estates: 148 ITD 446 (Chennai Trib.) • ACIT v. Sterling Estates & Pro…

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)

ITA 4081/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2016AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Ajit ShettyFor Respondent: Shri N.P.Singh
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…ld up to 2011, therefore, if any, merger of flats was done 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 f…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Indirapuram Habibat Centre Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the Revenue for the A

ITA 4930/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu, J.M. & Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am

For Appellant: Sh. PC Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Sh.Amrit Lal, Sr. DR
Section 263

…O.) in both the Assessment Years (A.Y.) has accepted the claim of the assessee that it is in the real estate business. On these facts we respectfully follow the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the ITAT in the case of Haware Constructions P.Ltd. vs. ITO (2011) 64 DTR 251, wherein it is held as follows. “There is no dispute to the fact that the assessee company is engaged in the business of construction and builders and during the A.Y. 2004-05 the project completion method followed by the assessee has been accepted. The submission of the counsel for the assessee that the Revenue has not taken any remedial measure…

Mrs. Indrapuram Habitat Centre Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the Revenue for the A

ITA 2416/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu, J.M. & Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am

For Appellant: Sh. PC Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Sh.Amrit Lal, Sr. DR
Section 263

…O.) in both the Assessment Years (A.Y.) has accepted the claim of the assessee that it is in the real estate business. On these facts we respectfully follow the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the ITAT in the case of Haware Constructions P.Ltd. vs. ITO (2011) 64 DTR 251, wherein it is held as follows. “There is no dispute to the fact that the assessee company is engaged in the business of construction and builders and during the A.Y. 2004-05 the project completion method followed by the assessee has been accepted. The submission of the counsel for the assessee that the Revenue has not taken any remedial measure…

ITO 16(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Prestige Builders, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4596/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Ms. Bharti SinghFor Respondent: Ms. Neelam C. Jadhav
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…T v. Jogani Constructions Ltd., 35 taxmann.com 9 (Bombay). Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. G.R. Developers, 22 taxmann.com 265 and the Mumbai Bench of the ITAT in the case of Haware Constructions (P) Ltd., 64 DTR 251 (ITAT Mumbai). 7.Thus, in view of the facts of the case and the settled position of law as discussed above, we find nothing wrong in the findings of the ld. CIT(A), and therefore, these are upheld. Therefore, the grounds raised by the revenue in this appeal are dismissed. In view of this Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that the issue is decide…

DCIT Cen Cir 9, Mumbai vs. Acme Combines, Mumbai

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

ITA 1377/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2016AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Ravikant PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Goel
Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 254(1)Section 80

…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 discretion of the bench. The Authorise…

ITO 16(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Prestige Builders, Mumbai

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 3355/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ashwani Taneja: Ito-16(2)(4) Vs M/S. Prestige Builders 1St Floor, 297, Old Tardeo Road, (Appellant) Nana Chowk, Mumbai 400 007. Pan : Aakfm1063B (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Kirtney (DR)For Respondent: None
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…T v. Jogani Constructions Ltd., 35 taxmann.com 9 (Bombay). Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. G.R. Developers, 22 taxmann.com 265 and the Mumbai Bench of the ITAT in the case of Haware Constructions (P) Ltd., 64 DTR 251 (ITAT Mumbai). 7. Thus, in view of the facts of the case and the settled position of law as discussed above, we find nothing wrong in the findings of the ld. CIT(A), and therefore, these are upheld. Therefore, the grounds raised by the revenue in this appeal are dismissed. 8. As a result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced…

ITO 12(3)4, Mumbai vs. Vardhan Builders, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4635/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

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

Section 2Section 80I

…that if units are combined by the customers, the built up area should be computed independently and the assessee cannot be denied the deduction. For this proposition, the assessee places reliance on the following decisions – a. Haware Constructions Pvt. Ltd. [64 DTR 251 (Mum)] b. Emgeen Holdings P. Ltd. vs. DCIT [ITA.No.3594 & 3595/Mum/09] c. DCIT vs. Arcade Bhoomi Enterprises [ITA.No.366/Mum/10] 23.1. We find that the ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of Haware Constructions (P) Ltd. vs. ITO (2011) 64 DTR (Mum)(Trib) 251, has held as under: “Deduction under s. 80-IB - Income from developing and building housing proj…