Spytech Builcon v. ACIT

Rubberwala Housing and Infrastructure Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 5(3)(2), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

…of Rs.2,03,05,828/- in the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 28.12.2016. 4. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition in view of decision of the Jaipur Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Spytech Builcon v. ACIT reported in (2021) 190 ITD 325 (Jaipur- Trib). 5. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by way of raising grounds as reproduced above. 6. We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the relevant material on record. Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that in the case of the assessee sales have taken place in the year prior to…

Rubberwala Housing and Infrastructure Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT 5(3)(1), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

…of Rs.2,03,05,828/- in the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 28.12.2016. 4. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition in view of decision of the Jaipur Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Spytech Builcon v. ACIT reported in (2021) 190 ITD 325 (Jaipur- Trib). 5. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by way of raising grounds as reproduced above. 6. We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the relevant material on record. Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that in the case of the assessee sales have taken place in the year prior to…

Rubberwala Housing and Infrastructure Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle-5(3)(1), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

…of Rs.2,03,05,828/- in the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 28.12.2016. 4. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition in view of decision of the Jaipur Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Spytech Builcon v. ACIT reported in (2021) 190 ITD 325 (Jaipur- Trib). 5. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by way of raising grounds as reproduced above. 6. We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the relevant material on record. Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that in the case of the assessee sales have taken place in the year prior to…

Rubberwala Housing and Infrastructure Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle-5(3)(2), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

…of Rs.2,03,05,828/- in the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 28.12.2016. 4. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition in view of decision of the Jaipur Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Spytech Builcon v. ACIT reported in (2021) 190 ITD 325 (Jaipur-Trib). 5. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by way of raising grounds as reproduced above. 6. We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the relevant material on record. Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that in the case of the assessee sales have taken place in the year prior to a…

Rubberwala Housing and Infrastructure Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle-5(3)(1), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

…of Rs.2,03,05,828/- in the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 28.12.2016. 4. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition in view of decision of the Jaipur Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Spytech Builcon v. ACIT reported in (2021) 190 ITD 325 (Jaipur- Trib). 5. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by way of raising grounds as reproduced above. 6. We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the relevant material on record. Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that in the case of the assessee sales have taken place in the year prior to…

Rubberwala Realty, Mumbai vs. ITO- 19(3)(2), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

…IT(A) upheld the addition in view of decision of the Jaipur Bench of the Tribunal in the case of of decision of the Jaipur Bench of the Tribunal in the case of decision of the Jaipur Bench of the Tribunal in the case Spytech Builcon v. ACIT reported in (2021) 190 ITD 325 (Jaipur- Spytech Builcon v. ACIT reported in (2021) 190 ITD 325 (Jaipur Spytech Builcon v. ACIT reported in (2021) 190 ITD 325 (Jaipur Trib). 5. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by way the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by way the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by way of raising grounds as reproduced…

Heks Infrastructure and Developers, Mumbai vs. ITO- 17(1)(5), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

…IT(A) upheld the addition in view of decision of the Jaipur Bench of the Tribunal in the case of of decision of the Jaipur Bench of the Tribunal in the case of decision of the Jaipur Bench of the Tribunal in the case Spytech Builcon v. ACIT reported in (2021) 190 ITD 325 (Jaipur- Spytech Builcon v. ACIT reported in (2021) 190 ITD 325 (Jaipur Spytech Builcon v. ACIT reported in (2021) 190 ITD 325 (Jaipur Trib). 5. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by way the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by way the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by way of raising grounds as reproduced…

Hilton Infrastructure, Mumbai vs. ITO-21(1)(4), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

…of Rs.2,03,05,828/- in the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 28.12.2016. 4. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition in view of decision of the Jaipur Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Spytech Builcon v. ACIT reported in (2021) 190 ITD 325 (Jaipur- Trib). 5. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by way of raising grounds as reproduced above. 6. We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the relevant material on record. Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that in the case of the assessee sales have taken place in the year prior to…

M/S Deva Realtors, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO 28(1)(3), Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S Deva Realtors Vs. Ito 28(1)(3) Shop No. 33/34, Maruti Room No. 331, Paradise, Sector 15, Tower No. 6, 3 Rd Floor, Cbd Belapur, Vashi Railway Station Navi Mumbai – 400614 Commercial Complex, Vashi, Navi Mumbai 400703 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aagfd8536Q Appellant .. Respondent

…included sale proceeds of the said two flats was filed on 30.09.2013. The ld. D.R submitted that Sec. 43CA was inserted by the Finance Act, 2013 w.e.f 01.04.2014 and placed reliance on the decision of ITAT, Jaipur in the case of Spytech Buildcon Vs. ACIT vide 190 ITD 325 wherein held that merely because an agreement had taken place prior to 01.04.2013 would not take away transactions from ambit of provisions of Sec. 43CA of the Act. The ld. Counsel relied on the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, in the case of Zain Construction vide writ Petition No.345 wherein held that Sec.43CA was inserted w.e.f 0…