Pegasus Properties (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT

193 ITD 514Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2022#17156 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2023 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 159

Issues it is cited on

annual value first appeal section 23 interest

Judgments citing Pegasus Properties (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. MULLIAMBAL RATHNASAMY PITCHAKANNU ERAAVANAN, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeal filed by the Revenue and the Cross

ITA 1810/CHNY/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Feb 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1810/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 & C.O. No. 74/Chny/2024 [In Ita No. 1810/Chny/2024] The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Arvind E & Mrs. Baskaravalli Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), (Legal Heir Of Late Shri Mrp Investigation Building, Eraavanan), No. 4, Rice Mill Road, Chennai. Erimedu, Ramanathapuram, Coimbatore 641 045. [Pan:Aaape5554D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sundar Rajan, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C. Khathiravan, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 11.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.04.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai-19, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Dr Shri S. Sundar Rajan, Cit Drew Our Attention To Additional Grounds Raised By The Appellant – Revenue. He Submits That The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Is Erroneous On Facts Of The Case

For Appellant: Shri S. Sundar Rajan, CITFor Respondent: Shri C. Khathiravan, Advocate

Section 159Section 2

…e done only after substantive assessment is done. An assessment can be considered as protective only when there is substantive assessment. The substantive assessment has to precede protective assessment" 6.17 In the case of Pegasus Property (Pvt) Ltd vs DCIT (193 ITD 514), Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai Bench has held as under "since no substantiate addition was made, the protective addition made in the hands of the assessee does not survive". 6.18 In the case of ITO, ward 1/Nagaon vs Keshava Nanda Kabti(2021) 133 taxmann.com.316, Hon'ble ITAT Guwahati Bench has held as under In the absence of substantive addition made in t…

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(1), MUMBAI vs. NEEPA REAL ESTATES PVT LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 1508/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Years: 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner M/S. Neepa Real Estates Of Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd., 12Th Floor, Hallmark Central Circle -6(1), Room No. 1905, Business Plaza, Vs. 19Th Floor, Sang Dnyaneshwar Marg, Air India Building, Near Gurunanak Hospital, Nariman Point, Bandra East, Mumbai- 400 021 Mumbai- 400 051 Pan: Aaacn1884C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 43C

…rt in case of CIT vs. Ansal Housing Finance & Leasing Co. Pvt. Ltd. (supra) the co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal in cases of Modern Abodes Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO in ITA No.2735/M/2022 dated 03.04.2023 (Mum-Trib.), Pegasus Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (2022) 193 ITD 514 (Mum-Trib.) & Sheth Developers Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.1953 & 1954/M/2020 held that notional rent of unsold stock cannot be taxed. It is also held in the aforesaid order passed by the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal that section 23(5) is prospective in nature and applicable from 2018-19. 9. We have perused the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) deleting t…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), MUMBAI vs. KEYSTONE REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1808/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.1807/मुं/ 2022 एवं 1808/मुं/ 2022 ("न.व.2016-17 एवं 2017-18)

For Appellant: Smt. Madhumalti Ghosh, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Naresh Kumar

Section 23Section 36(1)(iii)

…ng stock of (A.Y. 2016-17 & 2017-18) flats and shops where occupancy certificates were received. We find that in the case of Seth Developers Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Co-ordinate Bench following the decision rendered in the case of Pegasus Properties Pvt. Ltd., 193 ITD 514 (Mum-Trib) deleted the addition towards deemed notional rent in respect of unsold flats held as stock in trade. The Co-ordinate Bench further considered the amendment introduced by the Finance Act, 2017 and held that the said amendment would be effective from Assessment Year 2018-19 onwards. The issue in present appeal is identical to the one dec…

DY CIT CC 2(4), MUMBAI vs. KEYSTONE REALTORS PVT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1807/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.1807/मुं/ 2022 एवं 1808/मुं/ 2022 ("न.व.2016-17 एवं 2017-18)

For Appellant: Smt. Madhumalti Ghosh, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Naresh Kumar

Section 23Section 36(1)(iii)

MODERN ABODES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 12(3)(4) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2735/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blemodern Abodes Pvt. Ltd., V. Income Tax Officer – 12(3)(4) C/O. Gulabani & Co. Room No. 148, Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 506, 5Th Floor Shree Prasad House 35Th Road, Off. Linking Road Bandra (W), Mumbai - 400050 Pan: Aagcm1595B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Ms. Neelam Jadhav Shri Ashish Kumar Deharia Department Represented By :

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 23(1)Section 32Section 37(1)

…old stock for AY 2014-2015. Amendment had been brought in statute in section 23(5) from assessment year 2018- 19. Hence, the direction given to take ALV is not justified and same may be deleted. 3. In the case of Pegasus Properties (P) Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (2022] 193 ITD 514 (Mum) (Trib.) held that no addition on account of deemed rental income could be made in respect of unsold stock of flats held as 'stock-in-trade' up to A.Y. 2017-18. 4. In the case of Osho Developers, ITA No.2372 & 1860/Mum/2019, dt. 03/11/2020 (Mum) (Trib.) held in para no. 10 & 11 that unsold flats which were in stock in trade cannot be taxed a…