Viswas Promoters Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT

255 CTR 149High Court2013#3304 most cited

What is Viswas Promoters Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT authority for?

The mere fact that one block in a housing project has units exceeding the built-up area limit does not disqualify the entire project from claiming deduction under section 80IB(10). Assessees are entitled to proportionate deduction for eligible blocks or units.

36

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Viswas Promoters Pvt Ltd v ACIT · 80IB(10) · housing project · built-up area limit · proportionate deduction · eligible units · section 80IB · tax benefit · deduction claim

Also reported as

81 DTR 68

Sections most often in play

Section 80IB(10)

Issues it is cited on

section 80ib(10)section 80ibproject completion methodtax benefitsection 80ichildliable to taxsection 80section 11prescribedsection 143section 147

Judgments citing Viswas Promoters Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT

Janapriya Engineers Syndicate Limited (Formerly Known As Janapriya Engineers Syndicate Pvt. Ltd.), Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1139/HYD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jan 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

For Appellant: Shri A. SrinivasFor Respondent: Smt. S. Narasamma
Section 40

…es have not been constructed by the assessee till the date of survey and upto 31.03.2008. 18 I.T.A. No. 1139/Hyd/17 and others Janapriya Engineers Syndicate Ltd., Hyd and others 37. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in Viswas Promoters Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, (2013) 255 CTR 149 (Mad.) have laid down that within a composite housing project, where there are eligible and inelligible units, the assessee can claim deduction in respect of eligible units in the project and even within the block, the assessee is entitled to claim proportionate relief against the units satisfying the extent of built-up area. 38. Similar proposi…

The DCIT, Central Circle - 2, Hyderabad vs. M/S. Engineers Reddy P. Ltd, Hyderabad

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1485/HYD/2010[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

For Appellant: Shri A. SrinivasFor Respondent: Smt. S. Narasamma
Section 40

…es have not been constructed by the assessee till the date of survey and upto 31.03.2008. 18 I.T.A. No. 1139/Hyd/17 and others Janapriya Engineers Syndicate Ltd., Hyd and others 37. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in Viswas Promoters Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, (2013) 255 CTR 149 (Mad.) have laid down that within a composite housing project, where there are eligible and inelligible units, the assessee can claim deduction in respect of eligible units in the project and even within the block, the assessee is entitled to claim proportionate relief against the units satisfying the extent of built-up area. 38. Similar proposi…

The DCIT, Central Circle - 2, Hyderabad vs. M/S. Engineers Reddy P. Ltd, Hyderabad

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1484/HYD/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jan 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

For Appellant: Shri A. SrinivasFor Respondent: Smt. S. Narasamma
Section 40

…es have not been constructed by the assessee till the date of survey and upto 31.03.2008. 18 I.T.A. No. 1139/Hyd/17 and others Janapriya Engineers Syndicate Ltd., Hyd and others 37. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in Viswas Promoters Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, (2013) 255 CTR 149 (Mad.) have laid down that within a composite housing project, where there are eligible and inelligible units, the assessee can claim deduction in respect of eligible units in the project and even within the block, the assessee is entitled to claim proportionate relief against the units satisfying the extent of built-up area. 38. Similar proposi…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S. Sanklecha Constructions, Nashik

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1214/PUN/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Amol Kamat
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80I

…of 2006 decided on 05-01-2007 has held that in case of such violation, the assessee is eligible for claiming proportionate deduction. Similar view has been taken by the Hon‟ble Madras High Court in the case of Vishwas Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT reported as 255 CTR 149 and the Pune Bench of Tribunal in the case of DCIT Vs. Magarpatta Township Development & Construction Co. reported as 141 ITD 682. 4.3 In respect of liquidated damages the ld. AR submitted that the assessee entered into agreement dated 03-08-2007 with M/s. National Reality Limited for sale of land along with constructed building comprising of bas…

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

…nder section 80IB(10) claimed during the year. In support of his submissions that the assessee is eligible for proportionate deduction under section 80IB(10), the ld AR for the assessee relied on the following decision; (a) Viswas Promotors (P) Ltd Vs ACIT (255 CTR 149)(Mad), (b) Rohan Homes Vs ACIT( ITA No.423/PN/2011)dated 31.03.2013, (c) DCIT Vs Ekta Homes Pvt Ltd (ITA 3649/M/2009) dated 20.05.2011, (d) ACIT Vs Suncity Housing (ITA No. 5183/M/2014) dated 30.05.2016, (e) Bengal Ambuja Housing Development Ltd Vs ACIT (ACIT Vs 1595/Kol/2005) upheld by Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in IT Appeal No.458 of 2006 date…

Maruti Estate (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 321/CTK/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 Apr 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2004-05

For Appellant: Shri P.R.Mohanty, ARFor Respondent: Shri A. Tigga, DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 80I

…isions of section 80IB(10)(c) of the Act. Therefore, he disallowed the deduction for the entire project claimed by the assessee. We find that Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of VISWAS PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 255 CTR 149 (Mad) vide order dated 2nd November, 2012 has observed as under: “14. On the facts admitted by the Revenue, in the projects "Agrini" and "Vajra", there are number of flats which are below 1500 sq.ft., and the relevant built-up area requirement is specified under Section 80IB(10)(c) of the Income Tax Act. Thus, the built-up area in some of the f…

Soham Construction, Kalyan vs. ITO WD 2(4), Kalyan

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 336/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Narendra Singh Janpangi
Section 80I

…submits that in view of the various judicial pronouncements there is no merit in the appeal of the Department and the same may be dismissed. In support of his contentions he placed reliance on the following decisions: a. Viswas Promoters (P) Ltd v. Asst. CIT [255 CTR 149 (Mad)]; b. Rohan Homes v. Asst. CIT (ITA No: 423/PN/2011) dated 31.01.2013; c. Dy. CIT v. Ekta Housing Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No: 3649/Mum/2009) dated 20.05.2011; d. Asst. CIT v. Suncity Housing (ITA No: 5183/Mum/2014) dated 30.05.2016; e. Bengal Ambuja Housing Development Ltd v. Asst. CIT (1TA No:1595/Ko1/2005) dated 24.03.2006 upheld by Hon'ble Calcutt…

ITO WD 2(4), Kalyan vs. Soham Constuction, Badlapur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 164/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Narendra Singh Janpangi
Section 80I

…submits that in view of the various judicial pronouncements there is no merit in the appeal of the Department and the same may be dismissed. In support of his contentions he placed reliance on the following decisions: a. Viswas Promoters (P) Ltd v. Asst. CIT [255 CTR 149 (Mad)]; b. Rohan Homes v. Asst. CIT (ITA No: 423/PN/2011) dated 31.01.2013; c. Dy. CIT v. Ekta Housing Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No: 3649/Mum/2009) dated 20.05.2011; d. Asst. CIT v. Suncity Housing (ITA No: 5183/Mum/2014) dated 30.05.2016; e. Bengal Ambuja Housing Development Ltd v. Asst. CIT (1TA No:1595/Ko1/2005) dated 24.03.2006 upheld by Hon'ble Calcutt…

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Guru Pragya Infra (P) Ltd., Jaipur

ITA 417/JPR/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jan 2017AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Roshanta Meena (JCIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 147Section 80I

…plete project itself. Therefore, the assessee is entitled for deduction in respect of that block of the housing project in respect of which completion certificate has been issued. For this reliance is placed in case of Viswas Promoters Private Limited V. ACIT 81 DTR 68 (Mad.) (PB 37-38). In this case it was held that within a composite housing project, where there are eligible and ineligible units, the assessee can claim deduction in respect of eligible units in the project and even within the block, the assessee is entitled to claim proportionate relief in the units satisfying the extent of the built up area. In…

Rupvakula Properites P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 10(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7520/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Dharan GandhiFor Respondent: Shri B.S. Bist
Section 80I

…e 31st March 2008 being a separate housing project would be eligible for deduction under section 80IB(10). In this regard, he relied upon the following decisions:– i) CIT v/s Vandana Properties, 353 ITR 36 (Bom.); and ii) Vishwas Properties P. Ltd. v/s ACIT, 255 CTR 149 (Mad.). 6. Learned Authorised Representative further submitted, though as per the Assessing Officer the assessee may not have fulfilled the condition of completing the entire housing project consisting of eleven projects but still the assessee would be eligible to claim deduction in respect of four buildings which were constructed within the tim…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Swatantra Land and Finance Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 568/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Anima Banwal, Sr. DR
Section 145Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AY: 2006-07 M/s Swatantara Land & Finance Pvt. Ltd., vs ACIT, M-95, Front Basement, Circle 7(1), Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi. New Delhi. (PAN: AAACS1849N) AY: 2006-07 DCIT, vs M/s Swatantara Land & Finance Pvt. Ltd. Circle 7(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Ms Bhavita Kumar, Adv. Respondent by: Smt. Anima Banwal, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 03.03.2016 Date of pronouncement: 31.05.2016 ORDER…

Swatantra Land & Finance Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 143/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Anima Banwal, Sr. DR
Section 145Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AY: 2006-07 M/s Swatantara Land & Finance Pvt. Ltd., vs ACIT, M-95, Front Basement, Circle 7(1), Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi. New Delhi. (PAN: AAACS1849N) AY: 2006-07 DCIT, vs M/s Swatantara Land & Finance Pvt. Ltd. Circle 7(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Ms Bhavita Kumar, Adv. Respondent by: Smt. Anima Banwal, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 03.03.2016 Date of pronouncement: 31.05.2016 ORDER…

M/S. Shipra Estate Ltd. & Jai Krishan Estate Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is

ITA 5849/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2009-10 Ay: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Vidharthi, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…has been separately approved by the local authority. Hence, it is our considered view that a separate approval for each eligible unit or project is not the intention of the Act. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Viswas Promoters (P) Ltd. vs ACIT 255 CTR 149 has held that the mere fact that one of the blocks have units exceeding built-up area of 1500 sq ft per se, would not result in nullifying the claim of the assessee for the entire project. Consequently, it was held, that assessee was entitled to the benefit of deduction u/s 80IB (10(c) of the Act in respect of each of the blocks. The Pune Bench…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Shipra Estate Ltd., & Jai Krishna Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is

ITA 5614/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2009-10 Ay: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Vidharthi, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…has been separately approved by the local authority. Hence, it is our considered view that a separate approval for each eligible unit or project is not the intention of the Act. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Viswas Promoters (P) Ltd. vs ACIT 255 CTR 149 has held that the mere fact that one of the blocks have units exceeding built-up area of 1500 sq ft per se, would not result in nullifying the claim of the assessee for the entire project. Consequently, it was held, that assessee was entitled to the benefit of deduction u/s 80IB (10(c) of the Act in respect of each of the blocks. The Pune Bench…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Shipra Estate Ltd. & Jai Krishan Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is

ITA 1950/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2009-10 Ay: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Vidharthi, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…has been separately approved by the local authority. Hence, it is our considered view that a separate approval for each eligible unit or project is not the intention of the Act. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Viswas Promoters (P) Ltd. vs ACIT 255 CTR 149 has held that the mere fact that one of the blocks have units exceeding built-up area of 1500 sq ft per se, would not result in nullifying the claim of the assessee for the entire project. Consequently, it was held, that assessee was entitled to the benefit of deduction u/s 80IB (10(c) of the Act in respect of each of the blocks. The Pune Bench…

Neelkanth Palm Realty, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 15(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7900/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Sanjay Aroraassessment Year:2008-09 M/S Neelkanth Palm Addl.Cit, Realty Fine House, Range-(15)(3), Anandji Lane, 5Th Floor, Matru Mandir, M.G. Road, Ghatkopar (E), Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400077 Mumbai ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaefn5224B

Section 143(3)Section 80I

…t. which is allowable as per law. In support of his contentions, learned AR relied on the following decisions :- i) G.V. Corporation Vs. ITO, 38 SOT 174(Mum); ii) ACIT Vs. Sheth Developers (P) Ltd., 33 SOT 277 (Mum); iii) Viswas Promoters (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT, 255 CTR 149; iv) SJR Builders Vs. ACIT, ITA No.1192/B/2008, dtd.21.8.2009(Bang) v) Sanghvi & Doshi Enterprise Vs. ITO, 131 ITD 151(Chennai); vi) ITO Vs. AIR Developers, 122 ITD 125 (Nag); vii) DCIT Vs. Brigade Enterprises P. Ltd., 28 SOT 7 (Bang); viii) DCIT Vs. Parkway Development, ITA No.1419/Bang/2010, dtd.20-8- 10; ix) ACIT Vs. Bengal Ambuja Housing Deve…