Millennia Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax

188 Taxmann 388High Court2010#13165 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 132 Section 132(1)Section 132(3)Section 132(4)Section 139 Section 143(3)Section 144 Section 147

Issues it is cited on

prohibited by law section 37 section 14 india business document interest

Judgments citing Millennia Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax

NIRMAN SONESTAA DEVELOPERS,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1536/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian, D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 37Section 37(1)

…rding, it is answered and this Reference Case is disposed of. However, no order is made as to costs.” 8.1 We find that similar findings have been rendered by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in Millennia Developers (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT, reported in [2010] 322 ITR 401 (Karn.). The relevant findings are reproduced as follows:– “8. The appeal is sought for admission on the following questions of law :— (i) Whether in law, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the disallowance of payment of Rs. 4,40,500 for regularization of the deviations which were within the permissible limits, holding it as penalty and thu…

PROFESSIONAL AUTOMOTIVES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 812/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील /ITA Nos.809 to 815/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years :2013-14 to 2019-20 Professional Automotives Pvt. बनाम ACIT, Ltd. Bahu Plaza, Bahu Plaza, Jammu Vs. Central Circle- 1, and Kashmir Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./जी.आई.आर. सं./PAN/GIR No.:AAACP9608E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्र]त्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Tarun Mittal, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh]U;kf;d lnL; ,o aJh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihyla-@ITA Nos.809 to 815/JP/2025 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years :2013-14 to 2019-20 Professional Automotives Pvt. cuke ACIT, Vs. Ltd. Central Circle- 1, Bahu Plaza, Bahu Plaza, Jammu Jaipur and Kashmir LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.:AAACP9608E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by :Shri Tarun Mittal, CA jktLo…

M/S I G PETROCHEMICAL LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 2310/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George K. George

For Appellant: Shri Parthasarthy, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD)

Section 14ASection 40

…ITA Nos.2309 & 2310/Bang/2018 M/s. I.G. Petrochemicals Limited, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE K. GEORGE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.2309 & 2310/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/s. I.G. Petrochemicals Limited D-4, Jyothi Complex Deputy Commissioner of 134/1, Infantry Road Vs. Income-tax Bangalore 560 001 Circle-3(1)(1) Bangalore PAN NO : AAACI4115R APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Parthasarthy, A.R. Respondent by : Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD), D.R. Date of Hearing : 25.05.2022 Da…

M/S I G PETROCHEMICALS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 2309/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George K. George

For Appellant: Shri Parthasarthy, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD)

Section 14ASection 40

M/S MUNEER ENTERPRISES ,HOSPET vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 , HOSPET

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

ITA 3411/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Siva Prasad Reddy, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath K., D.R

…ITA No.3411/Bang/2018 M/s. Muneer Enterprises, Hospet IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/s. Muneer Enterprises Upstairs M/s. Muneer Car Hospet-Bellary Road ITO Ward-1 Vs. Hospet 583 201 Hospete 583 201 PAN NO : AAGFM6500R APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Siva Prasad Reddy, A.R. Respondent by : Dr. Manjunath K., D.R. Date of Hearing : 20.10.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 01.12.2021 O R D E R PER B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The assessee has filed this appe…

M/S.VIGHNAHARTA BUILDERS & PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDL.CIT,RANGE-7(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6499/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Vighnaharta Builders Acit Range 7(3), Aayakar Bhavan & Projects Pvt. Ltd., 47-1/8 M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai- Vs. Shree Ganesh Nagar, 400020. Lalbaug, Mumbai-400012. Pan No. Aaacv3498G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Priyanka Jain, ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Samatha Mullamudi, DR

Section 143(3)Section 37Section 37(1)

…sought by BMC.” However, the AO was not convinced with the above reply of the assessee and relying on the decision in Indian Aluminium Company Ltd. 79 ITR 514, Maddi Venkatraman & Co. 229 ITR 534, Mamata Enterprise 266 ITR 356 and Millenia Developers P. Ltd. 322 ITR 401, made an addition of the BMC charges of Rs.38,52,000/-. M/s Vighnaharata Builders 3 4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). We find that vide appellate order dated 28.08.2017, the Ld. CIT(A) proposed an enhancement of Rs.5,12,500/- by issuing the following show cause notice dated 26.07.2017 to the…

M/S. M. HANUMANTHA RAO,,BELLARY vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KALABURAGI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 158/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S. M. Hanumatha Rao, H. No.37, W. No.17, Ground Floor, Main Road Near Park Patel Nagar, Ballari – 583101. … Appellant Pan:Aanfm 1777H Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 1, Ballary. … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. P. Dinesha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. N. Parbat, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)

…vision of law is not a necessary incident of the business. The learned Principal CIT also placed reliance upon the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Mamatha Enterprises (266 ITR 352) and Millenium Developers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. DCIT (322 ITR 401) wherein the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court held that the compounding fees paid for the violation of the rules of construction of buildings, is penal in nature and is not deductable. Thus the Principal CIT had come to the conclusion that the order of assessment is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue as the AO passed the a…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S JAIPURIA INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed partly for statistical purpose

ITA 1332/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2007-08 Vs. M/S. Dcit, Circle – 4(1), Room No. Jaipuria Infrastructure 407, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, Developers, 9B, Hansalaya, New Delhi Connaught Place, New Delhi Pan : Aaccb1286C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Umesh Chand Dubey, Sr.Dr Respondent By S/Sh. Rupesh Jain & Dipesh Jain, Adv. Date Of Hearing 18.05.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 16.06.2017 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against Order Dated 28/01/2011 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Vii, New Delhi [In Short “The Cit-(A)”] For Assessment Year 2007-08, Raising Following Grounds:

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘D’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2007-08 Vs. M/s. DCIT, Circle – 4(1), Room No. Jaipuria Infrastructure 407, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, Developers, 9B, Hansalaya, New Delhi Connaught Place, New Delhi PAN : AACCB1286C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Umesh Chand Dubey, Sr.DR Respondent by S/sh. Rupesh Jain & Dipesh Jain, Adv. Date of hearing 18.05.2017 Date of pronouncement 16.06.2017 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: This appeal by the Revenue is directed against order dated 28/01/2011 o…