Saroj Sales Organisation v. ITO

ITO WD 2(3), KALYAN vs. NANCY ICON BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS, ULHASNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

…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

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)

…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

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

…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

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

…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

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

…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

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

…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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar

…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

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

…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…