What is Prestige Estate Projects (P) Ltd. v. DCIT authority for?

A real estate developer adopting the completed contract method of accounting cannot be forced to follow the percentage completion method under AS-7 if AS-7 has not been specified by the Central Government under section 145(2). The Assessing Officer cannot reject accounts under section 145(3) solely on this ground.

How many judgments cite Prestige Estate Projects (P) Ltd. v. DCIT?

28 judgments on BharatTax cite Prestige Estate Projects (P) Ltd. v. DCIT (33 DTR 514), spanning 2016 to 2024.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Prestige Estate Projects (P) Ltd. v. DCIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 132, Section 142(1), Section 143(2), Section 143(3), Section 145, Section 145(1).

Prestige Estate Projects (P) Ltd. v. DCIT (33 DTR 514)

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, KARNAL vs. RELIABLE REALTECH PVT LTD, BHIWANI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4808/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Central Circle, Vs. Reliable Realtech Pvt. Ltd. Ayakar Bhawan, C/O Nk Jain Adv. Sec-12, Karnal, Naya Bazar, Bhiwani Haryana Pin 132001 Haryana Pin 127021 Pan Aadcr4203L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…accounting standards, no other accounting standard has been notified by the Central Government for the purpose of section 145(2) of the Act. Reliance is placed on the order of the Tribunal in the case of Prestige Estate Projects (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT reported in 129 TTJ 680 (Bang) wherein the assessee-company was a real estate developers. It maintained its account by adopting completed contract method of accounting. According to the Assessing Officer, it was mandatory for the assessee to follow percentage completion method for recognition of revenue as per the provisions of AS-7. He, accordingly, calculated the prof…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SAHARA INDIA POWER CORPORATION LTD., PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue for the AY 2005-06 in I

ITA 5067/DEL/2013[2005-06]Status: PendingITAT Delhi28 Apr 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Ajay VohraFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali

…ITA No. 109/Pun/2007 1 AND ITA.1155/Del/2009 & ITA.5067/Del/2013 AND C. O. No. 55/Del/2014 Sahara India Power Corporation Ltd., Pune IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH : ‘A’ NEW DELHI ] BEFORE Dr. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 109/PUN/2007 (A.Y. 2003-04) Sahara India Power ACIT, Vs. Corporation Limited, Circle : 6, Amby Valley, Sahara Lake City, Pune. Village Ambavane, Distt. Lonavala, Pune– 410401, Maharastra. PAN No. AAGCS8313P I.T.A. No. 1155/DEL/2009 (A.Y. 2004-05) Sahara India Power DCIT, Vs. Corporation Limited, Amby Valley, Cen…

SAHARA INDIA POWER CORPORATION LTD,PUNE vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue for the AY 2005-06 in I

ITA 1155/DEL/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Ajay VohraFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali

…ITA No. 109/Pun/2007 1 AND ITA.1155/Del/2009 & ITA.5067/Del/2013 AND C. O. No. 55/Del/2014 Sahara India Power Corporation Ltd., Pune IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH : ‘A’ NEW DELHI ] BEFORE Dr. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 109/PUN/2007 (A.Y. 2003-04) Sahara India Power ACIT, Vs. Corporation Limited, Circle : 6, Amby Valley, Sahara Lake City, Pune. Village Ambavane, Distt. Lonavala, Pune– 410401, Maharastra. PAN No. AAGCS8313P I.T.A. No. 1155/DEL/2009 (A.Y. 2004-05) Sahara India Power DCIT, Vs. Corporation Limited, Amby Valley, Cen…

SAHARA INDIA POWER CORPORATION LTD.,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue for the AY 2005-06 in I

ITA 109/PUN/2007[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2023AY 2003-04

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Ajay VohraFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali

…ITA No. 109/Pun/2007 1 AND ITA.1155/Del/2009 & ITA.5067/Del/2013 AND C. O. No. 55/Del/2014 Sahara India Power Corporation Ltd., Pune IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH : ‘A’ NEW DELHI ] BEFORE Dr. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 109/PUN/2007 (A.Y. 2003-04) Sahara India Power ACIT, Vs. Corporation Limited, Circle : 6, Amby Valley, Sahara Lake City, Pune. Village Ambavane, Distt. Lonavala, Pune– 410401, Maharastra. PAN No. AAGCS8313P I.T.A. No. 1155/DEL/2009 (A.Y. 2004-05) Sahara India Power DCIT, Vs. Corporation Limited, Amby Valley, Cen…

M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 109/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R

Section 250

…ed to tax and upheld by Honble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Taparia Tools Ltd.” ITA Nos.107 to 109/Bang/2022 M/s. Trishul Buildtech & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 79 of 115 16.12 In the case of Prestige Estate Projects (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT 129 TTJ 680 (Bang) (Trib) wherein held that: “The appellant undertakes construction activity for those persons to whom it intends to sell the super-built area along with undivided share of land in a project which it is developing as a developer. Hence, the assessee is not a construction contractor and revised AS-7 was considered as not applicable. Accountin…

M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 108/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R

Section 250

…ed to tax and upheld by Honble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Taparia Tools Ltd.” ITA Nos.107 to 109/Bang/2022 M/s. Trishul Buildtech & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 79 of 115 16.12 In the case of Prestige Estate Projects (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT 129 TTJ 680 (Bang) (Trib) wherein held that: “The appellant undertakes construction activity for those persons to whom it intends to sell the super-built area along with undivided share of land in a project which it is developing as a developer. Hence, the assessee is not a construction contractor and revised AS-7 was considered as not applicable. Accountin…

M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 107/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R

Section 250

…ed to tax and upheld by Honble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Taparia Tools Ltd.” ITA Nos.107 to 109/Bang/2022 M/s. Trishul Buildtech & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 79 of 115 16.12 In the case of Prestige Estate Projects (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT 129 TTJ 680 (Bang) (Trib) wherein held that: “The appellant undertakes construction activity for those persons to whom it intends to sell the super-built area along with undivided share of land in a project which it is developing as a developer. Hence, the assessee is not a construction contractor and revised AS-7 was considered as not applicable. Accountin…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 544/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Nagin Khincha &For Respondent: Shri M. Mathivanan, D.R

Section 131Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 45(2)

…hich clearly lays down that matching is required to be done on accrual basis in respect of the income offered to tax and upheld by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Taparia Tools Ltd.” 8.13 In the case of Prestige Estate Projects (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT 129 TTJ 680 (Bang) (Trib) wherein held that: “The appellant undertakes construction activity for those persons to whom it intends to sell the super-built area along with undivided share of land in a project which it is developing as a developer. Hence, the assessee is not a construction contractor and revised AS-7 was considered as not applicable. Accountin…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 543/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Nagin Khincha &For Respondent: Shri M. Mathivanan, D.R

Section 131Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 45(2)

…hich clearly lays down that matching is required to be done on accrual basis in respect of the income offered to tax and upheld by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Taparia Tools Ltd.” 8.13 In the case of Prestige Estate Projects (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT 129 TTJ 680 (Bang) (Trib) wherein held that: “The appellant undertakes construction activity for those persons to whom it intends to sell the super-built area along with undivided share of land in a project which it is developing as a developer. Hence, the assessee is not a construction contractor and revised AS-7 was considered as not applicable. Accountin…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 542/BANG/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Nagin Khincha &For Respondent: Shri M. Mathivanan, D.R

Section 131Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 45(2)

…hich clearly lays down that matching is required to be done on accrual basis in respect of the income offered to tax and upheld by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Taparia Tools Ltd.” 8.13 In the case of Prestige Estate Projects (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT 129 TTJ 680 (Bang) (Trib) wherein held that: “The appellant undertakes construction activity for those persons to whom it intends to sell the super-built area along with undivided share of land in a project which it is developing as a developer. Hence, the assessee is not a construction contractor and revised AS-7 was considered as not applicable. Accountin…

ACIT, CIRCLE - 40, KOLKATA vs. M/S. SALARPURIA SIMPLEX DWELLING LLP, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2328/KOL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 May 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Assessment Year: 2015-16

Section 250

…. 4.10.2013 ITA No. 2642IMum/2012 dt. 4.10.2013 DCIT v. Friends Buildtech & Developers Pvt. Ltd. DCIT v. Friends Buildtech & Developers Pvt. Ltd. - ITA No. 2102/Del/2012 dt. ITA No. 2102/Del/2012 dt. 11.3.2016 Prestige Estate Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (2010) 129 TTJ 680 (Bang.) stige Estate Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (2010) 129 TTJ 680 (Bang.) Hence, as observed above, I hereby conclude that the questions No. 1 & 2 so framed Hence, as observed above, I hereby conclude that the questions No. 1 & 2 so framed Hence, as observed above, I hereby conclude that the questions No. 1 & 2 so framed by me goes in favour of…

M/S. APNA SAPNA,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 454/BANG/2017[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Feb 2019AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Nitish Ranjan, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. N. Dhandapani, JCIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 263

…enterprises undertaking construction activities on their own which would include real estate developer. However, the revised AS 7 is applicable only to Contractors. The Hon'ble Bangalore Tribunal in the case of Prestige Estate Projects (P) Ltd. v. DCIT [2010] 33 DTR 514 (Bang.) also examined the opinion given by the EAC on the applicability of AS 7 and held that the revised AS 7 does not apply to builders and real estate developers. 17.3 In the instant case, the Appellant is a real estate developer and not a contractor. Consequently, the general principles of Revenue Recognition as per AS 9 would become applicabl…

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)

…uch a manner and follow any recognized method of accounting to compute its profits. Reliance was also placed by Honble. 1TAT on the decision in the case of Awadhesh Builders vs /TO (2010) 37 SOT 122 (Mum) and Prestige Estate Projects (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2010) 129 TTJ 680 (Bang). In the facts before the Honble. Tribunal, in the case of Hill View Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (Supra), the assessee was carrying on the business of real estate developers. It was following one of the accepted accounting standard approved by ICAI for recognizing the revenue generated by it, the assessee there also had followed Project Compl…

SOHANLAL M JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ITO 2(1), THANE

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 5776/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri. Vimal PunamiyaFor Respondent: Shri. V. Justin (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…HC) 2. Sabh Infrastructure Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, ITA No. 4572(Del) of 2009 3. DCIT v/s Ansal Landmark Township P Ltd. ITA No.2859/ Del/2012 4. Unique Enterprises Vs. ITO [2010- TIOL -737- ITAT- MUM 5. Prestige Estate Projects (P) Ltd, vs. Dy. CIT (2010)33 DTR 514 (Bang.) 6. C1T v. Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd, (1977j 106 ITR 363 (Bom HC) 7. Swastik Group Versus ACIT 15(3), Mumbai 8. Sheth Developers P. Ltd, Mumbai vs ITO ITAT Mumbai 18 July, 2012 9. Asstt CIT v Dharti Estate(2011] 129 ITD 1 (Mum)(TM), 10. Prem Enterprises V/s ITO (2012] 25 taxmann.com 179 (Mum.) 11. Nandi Housing (P.) Ltd. V/.s DCIT (2004] 2…