Ramesh Gunshi Dedhia v. ITO

HUBTOWN LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL)-4, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M.Balaganeshआअसं.696/मुं/2021(िन.व. 2015-16) Hubtown Limited, Cts No. 469A, Hubtown Seasons, 1, R.C. Marg, Chembur (East), Mumbai-400071. Pan: Aaaca6101D ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Pcit (Central), Room No. 663, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Sh. Vijay Mehta "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Sh. Purushottam Tripuri, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 01/02/2022 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 26/04/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Principle Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central)-4, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Pcit’] Dated 30.03.2021 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’).

…h respect to the notification dated 05.01.2011, that it was to extend the permissible period in respect of projects approved after 01.04.2004, was considered and adjudicated by the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Ramesh Gunshi Dedhia v. ITO [148 ITD 356 (Mum)], which was relied upon before the CIT (A). In the said case, it was held that as a consequence of the proviso, the conditions prescribed in clauses (a) and (b) are relaxed if the housing project was carried out in accordance with the scheme of the Central or State Government. Since, the CIT(A) has extracted in extenso the findings recorded…

DCIT- CC-5(1), MUMBAI vs. HUBTOWN LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, cross objection filed by the assesee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sooddcit, Cc-5(1) Vs. M/S. Hubtown Ltd. Room No.1928 19Th Floor Akruti Trade Centre, 6Th Floor Air India Building, Nariman Point Road No.7, Marol-Midc Mumbai-400 021 Andheri(E) Mumbai-400 093

…h respect to the notification dated 05.01.2011, that it was to extend the permissible period in respect of projects approved after 01.04.2004, was considered and adjudicated by the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Ramesh Gunshi Dedhia v. ITO [148 ITD 356 (Mum)], which was relied upon before the CIT (A). In the said case, it was held that as a consequence of the proviso, the conditions prescribed in clauses (a) and (b) are relaxed if the housing project was carried out in accordance with the scheme of the Central or State Government. Since, the CIT(A) has extracted in extenso the findings recorded…

BHAVYA CONSTRUCTION CO. ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - 25(2), MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Itas No. 3690 & 3691/Mum/2018 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2006-07 & 2007-08) M/S Bhavya Construction The Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Co. 25(2), Patyakshkar Bhavan, C11, 4, Bhide Bungalows, 37-A, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra, M.G. Road, Vile Parle Mumbai-400 051 (East), Mumbai-400 057 (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) स्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aaafb1375K अपीलाथी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri Dr. K Shivaram, Sr. Advocate Ms. Neelam Co Jadav, Ars प्रत्यथी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh, Cit Dr ुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13.08.2019 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2019 Aadosa / O R D E R

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “B” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री महावीर स िंह, न्याययक दस्य एविं श्री राजेश कुमार लेखा दस्य के मक्ष। BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITAs No. 3690 & 3691/Mum/2018 (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2006-07 & 2007-08) M/S Bhavya Construction The Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax Co. 25(2), Patyakshkar Bhavan, C11, 4, Bhide Bungalows, 37-A, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra, M.G. Road, Vile Parle Mumbai-400 051 (East), Mumbai-400 057 (ApIlaaqaI- / Appellant) .. (p`%yaqaaI- / Respondent) स्थायी लेखा िं./PAN…

BHAVYA CONSTRUCTION CO. ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 25(2), MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Itas No. 3690 & 3691/Mum/2018 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2006-07 & 2007-08) M/S Bhavya Construction The Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Co. 25(2), Patyakshkar Bhavan, C11, 4, Bhide Bungalows, 37-A, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra, M.G. Road, Vile Parle Mumbai-400 051 (East), Mumbai-400 057 (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) स्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aaafb1375K अपीलाथी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri Dr. K Shivaram, Sr. Advocate Ms. Neelam Co Jadav, Ars प्रत्यथी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh, Cit Dr ुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13.08.2019 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2019 Aadosa / O R D E R

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “B” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री महावीर स िंह, न्याययक दस्य एविं श्री राजेश कुमार लेखा दस्य के मक्ष। BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITAs No. 3690 & 3691/Mum/2018 (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2006-07 & 2007-08) M/S Bhavya Construction The Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax Co. 25(2), Patyakshkar Bhavan, C11, 4, Bhide Bungalows, 37-A, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra, M.G. Road, Vile Parle Mumbai-400 051 (East), Mumbai-400 057 (ApIlaaqaI- / Appellant) .. (p`%yaqaaI- / Respondent) स्थायी लेखा िं./PAN…

MUKON CONSTRUCTIONS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 6(30, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am श्री महाविर स िंग, न्याययक दस्य एििं श्री राजेश कुमार, ऱेखा दस्य के मक्ष M/S Mukon Constructions Pvt Ltd. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 261, Sant Tukaram Marg, Tax-Range-6(3), फनधभ/ Carnac Bunder, Ayakar Bhavan, Vs. Masjit, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400009 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) स्थधमी रेखध सं./ Pan : Aadcm1616L (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीरधथी की ओय से /Assessee By : Shri Prakash Jyotwani प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Revenue By : Dr.Suman Ratnam सुनवधई की तधयीख /Date Of Hearing : 6.2.2017 घोषणध की तधयीख /Date Of : 15. 3.2017 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, A. M: Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertains To The Assessment Year 2007-08 & Is Directed Against The Order Dated 4.1.2011 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-12, Mumbai In Which The Assessee Has Raised The Issue Of Confirmation Of Disallowance By Ld.Cit(A) U/S 80Ib(10) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 To The Tune Of Rs.4,71,15,704/- As Held By The Ao On The Ground That The Development Rights (Tdr) From The Slump Rehabilitation Authority (Hereafter

…ubstantiated that the assessee was entitled to TDR as issued by SRA in the name of the assessee as a consideration for the project executed for SRA. The ld. AR in defence of his arguments relied on the following case law: A) Ramesh Gunshi Dedhia V/s ITO(2014) 148 ITD 356; B) ACIT V/s Smt C Rajini – 9 Taxman.com 115 (Chennai-ITAT); C) CIT V/s Radhe Developers (2008 23 SOT 420) (Ahd); 10 D) CIT V/s Radhe Developers (Guj) High Court E) Unity Infra projects V/s DCIT(ITAT Mum) decided on 10.10.2014; F) ITO V/s Saubhagyalaxmi Developer (ITAT Pune) decided on29.1.2016 and G) ITO V/s Sonasha Enterprises (ITAT Mumbai) 5.…

BHAVYA CONSTRUCTION CO.,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 21(1), MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

…n enactment. It was also contended that the time limit of approval on/or after 01/04/2004 will not be applicable in the case of proviso to section 80IB(10) of the Act. Reliance was placed upon the decision in Ramesh Gunshi Dedhia Vs. Income Tax Officer (2014) 148 ITD 356 (Mum.-Trib.) and Income Tax Officer vs. M/s. Asha Kashiprasada Ringshia Pandurang Sadan (2013) 29 taxmann.com 160 (Mum. – Trib.). On the other hand, Shri O.P. Meena, ld. DR strongly defended the impugned order by contended that the assessee has not fulfilled the conditions contained in section 80IB(10) of the Act. It was also pleaded that the cas…

ITO 21(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. GUNSHI KARSAN DEDHIA,, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ashwani Taneja

…dated 5th January 2011, submitted, the said notification has to be read along with the proviso to section 80BI(10), hence, will apply retrospectively. In this context, he referred to the decision of the Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, in Ramesh Gunshi Dedhia v/s ITO, 148 ITD 356 (Mum.). As far as the allegation of the Assessing Officer that certain residential units exceeded the built–up area of more than 1,000 sq.ft., the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted, deduction under section 80IB(10) can be restricted to residential units which are having less than 1,000 sq.ft. built–up area. IN this context, he referred t…