Saroj Sales Organisation v. ITO

115 TTJ 485Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2008#9949 most cited

What is Saroj Sales Organisation v. ITO authority for?

For projects approved before April 1, 2005, the eligibility for deduction under section 80IB(10) is determined by the law applicable at that time. Balconies are excluded when measuring the area of flats for the purpose of this deduction.

11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2019.

Also referred to as

Saroj Sales Organisation v. ITO · 115 TTJ 485 · section 80IB(10) · deduction · housing project · approval date · flat area · balcony exclusion

Also reported as

39 SOT 498

Judgments citing Saroj Sales Organisation v. ITO

DCIT, Cir-12(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Bengal Ambuja Housing Development Ltd., Kolkata

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

ITA 1514/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Oct 2019AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri A.L.Saini, Am]

Section 80ISection 80i

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH: KOLKATA [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, JM & Shri A.L.Saini, AM] I.TA No. 1514/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 And I.TA No. 1515/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2011-12 DCIT, Cir-12(1), Kolkata Vs. M/s. Bengal Ambuja Housing Development Ltd. PAN: AABCB0977F Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing 01.08.2019 Date of Pronouncement 18. 10 .2019 For the Appellant Dr. (Shri ) P.K. Srihari, CIT, ld.DR For the Respondent Shri D.S.Damle, FCA & Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, FCA, ld.ARs ORDER PER SHRI A.T. VARKEY, JM These appeals are preferred by the Revenue against the separate o…

M/S. Pratham Developers, Vadodara vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Baroda

ITA 3086/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2019AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Milind Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri H.V. Gurjar, CIT-D.R
Section 143(2)Section 801Section 80I

…r section 80IB(10) be allowed keeping in view of the various decisions brought to my knowledge by the Authorized Representative of the appellant, in particular, ACIT Vs Bengal Ambuja Housing Development Ltd., ITA 1735/KOL-205, Saroj Sales Organization vs. ITO 115 TTJ 485 (Mumbai), Johar Hassan Zozwalla (ITA No 5404/Mum/2008) and other judicial pronouncements. 3.3.7. Hon'ble Madras High Court in case of CIT Vs Sanghvi and Doshi Enterprise [2013] 255 CTR 156 (Mad.) held that: I.T.A Nos.2000/Ahd/2014 1533,2673,2769/Ahd/2015,3086/Ahd/2016,283/Ahd/2017,2192&CO158/Ahd/2015 Page 8 ACIT vs. M/s. Pratham Developers "36.…

The ACIT, Circle-2(2), Baroda vs. M/S. Pratham Developers, Baroda

ITA 2000/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2019AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Milind Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri H.V. Gurjar, CIT-D.R
Section 143(2)Section 801Section 80I

…r section 80IB(10) be allowed keeping in view of the various decisions brought to my knowledge by the Authorized Representative of the appellant, in particular, ACIT Vs Bengal Ambuja Housing Development Ltd., ITA 1735/KOL-205, Saroj Sales Organization vs. ITO 115 TTJ 485 (Mumbai), Johar Hassan Zozwalla (ITA No 5404/Mum/2008) and other judicial pronouncements. 3.3.7. Hon'ble Madras High Court in case of CIT Vs Sanghvi and Doshi Enterprise [2013] 255 CTR 156 (Mad.) held that: I.T.A Nos.2000/Ahd/2014 1533,2673,2769/Ahd/2015,3086/Ahd/2016,283/Ahd/2017,2192&CO158/Ahd/2015 Page 8 ACIT vs. M/s. Pratham Developers "36.…

ITO WD 2(3), Kalyan vs. Nancy Icon Builders and Developers, Ulhasnagar

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6491/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jul 2018AY 2009-10
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 80I

…t were also not complete on the date of issue of completion certificate. (3) On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A)-II, Pune erred in interpreting the words 'project' relying upon decision of Saroj Sales Corporation Vs ITO (Mum) 115 TTJ 485 & Vandana Properties 128 TTJ 89 (Mum) decision of which have not been accepted by the department and departmental appeal is pending before Hon'ble Supreme Court. (4) On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A)-II, Pun erred in holding that the land cost of the project is Rs.25,00,000/- as against adoption of Rs.17.89 cro…

Savita Builders & Developers, Thane vs. D.C.I.T. Circle-4, Thane

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2882/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2882/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) M/S Savita Builders & The Deputy Commissioner बनाम/ Developers, Of Income Tax – Central V. Sakharam Baba Sankul, Circle – 4, Bolinji, Thane. Near Union Bank, Virar (W), Taluka – Vasai, Dist Thane – 401 303. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aayfs1480N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Vishwas Jadhav (D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 40ASection 80ISection 80l

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “E” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2882/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) M/s Savita Builders and The Deputy Commissioner बनाम/ Developers, of Income Tax – Central v. Sakharam Baba Sankul, Circle – 4, Bolinji, Thane. Near Union Bank, Virar (W), Taluka – Vasai, Dist Thane – 401 303. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN : AAYFS1480N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee by Shri Anil Sathe Revenue by : Shri Vishwas Jadhav (D.R.) सुन…

Ramprasd Agarwal, Thane vs. ITO WD 2(2), Thane

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and both the cross appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 874/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2008-2009

For Appellant: Shri. Virag H. ShahFor Respondent: Shri. B.S. Bist
Section 143(2)Section 80I

…tment revolves around the allowance of deduction u/s 80IB(10), but from a different angle, i.e. some of the flats exceeded 1000sq. ft. this issue has been deal with by the Co-ordinate Bench at Mumbai in the case of Saroj Sales Organisation v/s ITO reported in 115 TTJ 485 (Mumbai), Hiranandani Akruti JV v/s DCIT, reported in 39 SOT 498 (Mum) and also by the Special Bench in the case of Braham Associates, reported in 119 ITD 255(Pune SB), wherein the coordinate Benches have held that for the projects approved prior to 01/04/2005, old law shall apply. 10. Respectfully, following the decisions, we dismiss the appeal…

Ramprasad Agarwal, Mumbai vs. ITO Cen Thane, Thane

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and both the cross appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 866/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2008-2009

For Appellant: Shri. Virag H. ShahFor Respondent: Shri. B.S. Bist
Section 143(2)Section 80I

…tment revolves around the allowance of deduction u/s 80IB(10), but from a different angle, i.e. some of the flats exceeded 1000sq. ft. this issue has been deal with by the Co-ordinate Bench at Mumbai in the case of Saroj Sales Organisation v/s ITO reported in 115 TTJ 485 (Mumbai), Hiranandani Akruti JV v/s DCIT, reported in 39 SOT 498 (Mum) and also by the Special Bench in the case of Braham Associates, reported in 119 ITD 255(Pune SB), wherein the coordinate Benches have held that for the projects approved prior to 01/04/2005, old law shall apply. 10. Respectfully, following the decisions, we dismiss the appeal…

ITO WD 2(2), Thane vs. Ramprasad Agarwal, Thane

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and both the cross appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1773/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2008-2009

For Appellant: Shri. Virag H. ShahFor Respondent: Shri. B.S. Bist
Section 143(2)Section 80I

…tment revolves around the allowance of deduction u/s 80IB(10), but from a different angle, i.e. some of the flats exceeded 1000sq. ft. this issue has been deal with by the Co-ordinate Bench at Mumbai in the case of Saroj Sales Organisation v/s ITO reported in 115 TTJ 485 (Mumbai), Hiranandani Akruti JV v/s DCIT, reported in 39 SOT 498 (Mum) and also by the Special Bench in the case of Braham Associates, reported in 119 ITD 255(Pune SB), wherein the coordinate Benches have held that for the projects approved prior to 01/04/2005, old law shall apply. 10. Respectfully, following the decisions, we dismiss the appeal…

ITO Cen ( Thane), Thane vs. Ramprasad Agarwal, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and both the cross appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1108/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2008-2009

For Appellant: Shri. Virag H. ShahFor Respondent: Shri. B.S. Bist
Section 143(2)Section 80I

…tment revolves around the allowance of deduction u/s 80IB(10), but from a different angle, i.e. some of the flats exceeded 1000sq. ft. this issue has been deal with by the Co-ordinate Bench at Mumbai in the case of Saroj Sales Organisation v/s ITO reported in 115 TTJ 485 (Mumbai), Hiranandani Akruti JV v/s DCIT, reported in 39 SOT 498 (Mum) and also by the Special Bench in the case of Braham Associates, reported in 119 ITD 255(Pune SB), wherein the coordinate Benches have held that for the projects approved prior to 01/04/2005, old law shall apply. 10. Respectfully, following the decisions, we dismiss the appeal…

Asst CIT Cen Cir 29 Cen RG 7, Mumbai vs. Haware Engg. & Builders P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5210/MUM/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Mihir C. Naniwadekar, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar Singh, D.R
Section 80Section 80ISection 80l

…xtending the deduction of income from housing project approved up to 31 March, 2007, the denial of deduction, in our view, is clearly not in accordance with law”. Similar view has been taken by ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Hiranandani Akruti JV v. DCIT (2010) 39 SOT 498 (Mum) and ACIT v. Sheth Developers 33 SOT 277 (Bom) wherein they have followed the judgement of ITAT in Saroj Sales Organization (supra). The ITAT, Ahmedabad in the case of Raj Developers v. ITO (2011) 43 SOT 184 (Ahmd) have also followed the decision of Division Benches in the case Aruna Excello Foundation Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2007) 108 TTJ (Chenna…

ITO., Ward-3(2), Thane vs. Sadhana Builders Pvt.Ltd., Thane

ITA 597/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Sandeep Gosainआयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/.Ita No.597/Mum/2013 ,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Assessment Year-2009-10 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2) M/S. Sadhana Builders Pvt. Ltd. Room No.4, B-Wing, 6Th Floor Dhaval Chhaya, Talaopali Ashar It Park, Wagle Estate Vs Ram Ganesh Gadkhari Path Thane(W)-400 604. Thane(W)-400 601. Pan:Aabcs 4673 D

For Appellant: Shri L.P. Singh -ARFor Respondent: Shri Sachidanand Dubey-DR
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 80I

…e denied deduction on the ground that other buildings of the project were incomplete, that the buildings E and F could not be completed because of the pending litigation before the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay.He referred to the judgment of Saroj Sales Corp. (115 TTJ 485) and Vandana Properties Ltd. (I.T appeal 3336 and 4361 of 2010 dt.28.3.2012).Finally, he allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and directed the AO to allow deduction u/s. 80IB(10) to the assessee on the eligible profits. 4.During the course of hearing before us the Departmental Representative(DR),supported the order of the AO and contended tha…

Saroj Sales Organisation v. ITO (115 TTJ 485) — Cited in 11 Judgments | BharatTax