Wall Street Construction Ltd. v. JCIT

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-7(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LIMITED(SUCCESSOR TO LODHA IMPRESSION REAL ESTATE PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the present appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

…umbai-49/10582/2016-17 dated 20/05/2021, had discussed this issue in detail and held that the assessee was not eligible to claim this expenditure in view of the decision of Hon'ble Special Bench of the Mumbai ITAT in the case of Wall Street Construction Ltd. (101 ITD 156). In the said order, had discussed why, as per my opinion, the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v Lokhandwala Construction Industries Ltd (260 TR 0579 (Bom)] did not support 3 ITA. No. 2154 /Mum/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-15 the case of the assessee and the issue was to be decided in view of decision of Hon'ble Special be…

MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LTD.(SUCCESSOR TO LODHA IMPRESSION REAL ESTATE P. LTD.),MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CENTRAL RANGE-7(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 527/मुं/2021 (िन.व. 2016-17) Macrotech Developers Ltd. (Successor To Lodha Impression Real Estate Private Limited,) 412, Floor -4, 17G Vardhaman Chamber, Cawasji Patel Road,Horniman Circle. Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 Pan: Aaacl-1490-J ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Dcit, Central Range – 7(3), Room No.655, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Neeraj Seth "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Dr. Mahesh Akhade सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 11/08/2022 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 09/11/2022 आदेश/ Order

…ent vehemently defended the impugned order and prayed for dismissing the appeal of assessee. The ld. Departmental Representative submits that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of Special Bench in the case of Wall Street Construction Ltd. vs. JCIT, 101 ITD 156(Mum)-(SB). 5. We have heard the submissions made by rival sides and have examined the orders of authorities below. Undisputedly, the assessee failed to make claim of deduction in respect of interest expenditure u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the Act in the return of income or by way of revised return of income The claim was first made by the assessee during…

ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-7(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LTD .(SUCCESSOR TO M/S SAHAJANAD HI-TECH CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD.), MUMBAI

In the result, for A.Y. 2015-16, the appeal of the learned

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm M/S Macrotech Developers Ltd. (Successor To M/S Sahajanad Acit Cc-7(3) Hi-Tech Construction Pvt. Room No. 655, Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan, 412,4Th Floor, 17-G, Vs. M.K.Road, Vardhaman Chambers, Mumbai- 400 020 Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Cirlce, Fort, Mumbai-400001 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No.Aaecp1936F Acit Cc-7(3) Macrotech Developers Ltd. Room No. 655, (Successor To Bellissimo Aayakar Bhavan, Developers Thane Private Limited) M.K.Road, 412, Floor-4, 17G Vs. Mumbai- 400 020 Vardhman Chamber, Cawasji, Patel Road, Horniman Circle, Fort, Mumabi-400 001 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No.Aadco0409D ‘Ita No. 1864/Mum/2022 (Assessment Year 2015-16) Macrotech Developers Ltd. Dcit, (Successor To Bellissimo Central Circle 7(3) Developers Thane Private Room No. 655, 6 Th Floor, Limited) 412, Floor-4, 17G Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. Vardhman Chamber, Cawasji, M. K. Road, Patel Road, Horniman Circle, Mumbai-400 021 Fort, Mumabi-400 001 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No.Aadco0409D

…umbai-49/10582/2016-17 dated 20/05/2021, had discussed this issue in detail and held that the assessee was not eligible to claim this expenditure in view of the decision of Hon'ble Special Bench of the Mumbai ITAT In the case of Wall Street Construction Ltd. (101 ITD 156). In the said order, had discussed why, as ITD 156). In the per my opinion, the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Lokhandwala Construction Industries Ltd. [260 ITR 0579 (Bom)] did not support the case of the assessee and the issue was to be decided in view of decision of Hon'ble Special bench of the Tribunal in the case…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-7(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, for A.Y. 2015-16, the appeal of the learned

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm M/S Macrotech Developers Ltd. (Successor To M/S Sahajanad Acit Cc-7(3) Hi-Tech Construction Pvt. Room No. 655, Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan, 412,4Th Floor, 17-G, Vs. M.K.Road, Vardhaman Chambers, Mumbai- 400 020 Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Cirlce, Fort, Mumbai-400001 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No.Aaecp1936F Acit Cc-7(3) Macrotech Developers Ltd. Room No. 655, (Successor To Bellissimo Aayakar Bhavan, Developers Thane Private Limited) M.K.Road, 412, Floor-4, 17G Vs. Mumbai- 400 020 Vardhman Chamber, Cawasji, Patel Road, Horniman Circle, Fort, Mumabi-400 001 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No.Aadco0409D ‘Ita No. 1864/Mum/2022 (Assessment Year 2015-16) Macrotech Developers Ltd. Dcit, (Successor To Bellissimo Central Circle 7(3) Developers Thane Private Room No. 655, 6 Th Floor, Limited) 412, Floor-4, 17G Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. Vardhman Chamber, Cawasji, M. K. Road, Patel Road, Horniman Circle, Mumbai-400 021 Fort, Mumabi-400 001 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No.Aadco0409D

…umbai-49/10582/2016-17 dated 20/05/2021, had discussed this issue in detail and held that the assessee was not eligible to claim this expenditure in view of the decision of Hon'ble Special Bench of the Mumbai ITAT In the case of Wall Street Construction Ltd. (101 ITD 156). In the said order, had discussed why, as ITD 156). In the per my opinion, the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Lokhandwala Construction Industries Ltd. [260 ITR 0579 (Bom)] did not support the case of the assessee and the issue was to be decided in view of decision of Hon'ble Special bench of the Tribunal in the case…

MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LTD(SUCCESSOR TO BELLISSIMO DEVELOPERS THANE PRIVATE LIMITED) ,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(3) (FORMERLY INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(3)(2)), MUMBAI

In the result, for A.Y. 2015-16, the appeal of the learned

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm M/S Macrotech Developers Ltd. (Successor To M/S Sahajanad Acit Cc-7(3) Hi-Tech Construction Pvt. Room No. 655, Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan, 412,4Th Floor, 17-G, Vs. M.K.Road, Vardhaman Chambers, Mumbai- 400 020 Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Cirlce, Fort, Mumbai-400001 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No.Aaecp1936F Acit Cc-7(3) Macrotech Developers Ltd. Room No. 655, (Successor To Bellissimo Aayakar Bhavan, Developers Thane Private Limited) M.K.Road, 412, Floor-4, 17G Vs. Mumbai- 400 020 Vardhman Chamber, Cawasji, Patel Road, Horniman Circle, Fort, Mumabi-400 001 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No.Aadco0409D ‘Ita No. 1864/Mum/2022 (Assessment Year 2015-16) Macrotech Developers Ltd. Dcit, (Successor To Bellissimo Central Circle 7(3) Developers Thane Private Room No. 655, 6 Th Floor, Limited) 412, Floor-4, 17G Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. Vardhman Chamber, Cawasji, M. K. Road, Patel Road, Horniman Circle, Mumbai-400 021 Fort, Mumabi-400 001 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No.Aadco0409D

…umbai-49/10582/2016-17 dated 20/05/2021, had discussed this issue in detail and held that the assessee was not eligible to claim this expenditure in view of the decision of Hon'ble Special Bench of the Mumbai ITAT In the case of Wall Street Construction Ltd. (101 ITD 156). In the said order, had discussed why, as ITD 156). In the per my opinion, the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Lokhandwala Construction Industries Ltd. [260 ITR 0579 (Bom)] did not support the case of the assessee and the issue was to be decided in view of decision of Hon'ble Special bench of the Tribunal in the case…

DCIT CENT. CIR. -5(3) (ERSTWHILE DCIT CENT. CIR. -36), MUMBAI vs. SUMER BUILDERS, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Blem/S. Sumer Builders V. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Central Circle – 5(3) 201, Commerce House {Erstwhile Dcit, Central Circle – 36} 140, Nm Road, Fort Room No. 1906, 19Th Floor Mumbai – 400 023 Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaafs2829R

…d in taxing the entire on-money in the year of receipt itself. Ld. Counsel for the assessee also relied on the judgements in the case of ACIT v. Videocon Atithi Shelters Pvt. Ltd. in ITA Nos. 3496 to 3499/Mum/2009, Wall Street Constructions Pvt. Ltd. v. JCIT [101 ITD 156 (Mum) (SB)] and JCIT v. K. Raheja Pvt. Ltd. [ 102 ITD 414 (Mumbai)] to contend that in such cases where project completion method is followed the income is to be taxed only in the year of completion of the project irrespective of the amount of receipts or expenditure during the year. 51. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further contended that the As…

SUMER BUILDERS,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 5(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Blem/S. Sumer Builders V. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Central Circle – 5(3) 201, Commerce House {Erstwhile Dcit, Central Circle – 36} 140, Nm Road, Fort Room No. 1906, 19Th Floor Mumbai – 400 023 Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaafs2829R

…d in taxing the entire on-money in the year of receipt itself. Ld. Counsel for the assessee also relied on the judgements in the case of ACIT v. Videocon Atithi Shelters Pvt. Ltd. in ITA Nos. 3496 to 3499/Mum/2009, Wall Street Constructions Pvt. Ltd. v. JCIT [101 ITD 156 (Mum) (SB)] and JCIT v. K. Raheja Pvt. Ltd. [ 102 ITD 414 (Mumbai)] to contend that in such cases where project completion method is followed the income is to be taxed only in the year of completion of the project irrespective of the amount of receipts or expenditure during the year. 51. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further contended that the As…

M/S. RUNWAL DEVELOPERS P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENT. CIR. -4(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Runwal Developers Deputy Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Income, 5Th Floor, Runwal & Central Circle -4(1), Omkar Esquare Off, Vs. Mumbai Eastern Express Highway, Sion (E) Mumbai – 400 022 Pan: Aaacr0395J (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Rakesh Joshi, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Rajeshwar Yadav, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.07.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.07.2020 O R D E R

…erefore, respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. M/S Bilahari Investment (P) Ltd 299 ITR 1 (SC), Special Bench decision of the Mumbai Benches of the Tribunal in the case of Wall Street Construction Ltd. vs. JCIT 101 ITD 156 (SB)(Mum); ITO vs. Panchvati Developers 115 TTJ 139 (Mum) and that of JCIT vs. K Raheja (P) Ltd. 102 ITD 314 (Mum), we delete the addition during the impugned assessment year and direct the AO to make the addition in respect of these on-money in the respect assessment years in which the projects have been completed.” 17. We, therefore, respectfu…

M/S.KATHAWALA REALTORS LLP,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(A)-6(4), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sood

…by us hereinabove, the assessee was admittedly following the “project completion method” in respect of its aforementioned project viz. “Duncan Heights”. We find that the „Special Bench‟ of the Tribunal in the case of Wallstreet Construction Ltd. Anr. Vs. JCIT 101 ITD 156 (Mum) (SB), had observed, that in case of an assessee following “project completion method” of accounting, income identifiable with that project is to be considered only in the year when the project is completed and the resultant income from that project is to be offered for tax. Also, a similar view had been taken by the coordinate benches of th…

LAXMI INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-31(2), MUMBAI

The appeal stands partly allowed to the extent indicated in the order

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.6977/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2007-08) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4198/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2008-09) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.6978/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2010-11) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.6979/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2011-12) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4199/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2012-13) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4200/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2013-14) Laxmi Industrial Estate Acit-31(2) बनाम/ 99, Prabhu Niwas Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Room No.708 Jawahar Nagar, Road No.15 Vs. C-11, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400 062. Mumbai-400 051. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafl-1382-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Reepal Tralshawala –Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Satish Chandra Rajore-Ld. Dr

…ould include related costs including interest cost also. The judgments relied upon by the assessee were distinguished on factual matrix. Rather reliance was placed on the decision of Special Bench of Tribunal rendered in Wall Street Construction Ltd. V/s JCIT 101 ITD 156 to arrive at conclusion that interest identifiable with the project should be allowed in the year when the project was completed and corresponding income from that project was offered for taxation. 3.2 The plea of consistency was rejected at para 5.3 by observing as under: - 5.3 As regards the claim of the assessee that it is following the same m…

LAXMI INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-31(2), MUMBAI

The appeal stands partly allowed to the extent indicated in the order

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.6977/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2007-08) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4198/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2008-09) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.6978/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2010-11) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.6979/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2011-12) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4199/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2012-13) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4200/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2013-14) Laxmi Industrial Estate Acit-31(2) बनाम/ 99, Prabhu Niwas Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Room No.708 Jawahar Nagar, Road No.15 Vs. C-11, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400 062. Mumbai-400 051. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafl-1382-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Reepal Tralshawala –Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Satish Chandra Rajore-Ld. Dr

…ould include related costs including interest cost also. The judgments relied upon by the assessee were distinguished on factual matrix. Rather reliance was placed on the decision of Special Bench of Tribunal rendered in Wall Street Construction Ltd. V/s JCIT 101 ITD 156 to arrive at conclusion that interest identifiable with the project should be allowed in the year when the project was completed and corresponding income from that project was offered for taxation. 3.2 The plea of consistency was rejected at para 5.3 by observing as under: - 5.3 As regards the claim of the assessee that it is following the same m…

LAXMI INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-31(2),, MUMBAI

The appeal stands partly allowed to the extent indicated in the order

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.6977/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2007-08) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4198/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2008-09) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.6978/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2010-11) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.6979/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2011-12) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4199/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2012-13) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4200/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2013-14) Laxmi Industrial Estate Acit-31(2) बनाम/ 99, Prabhu Niwas Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Room No.708 Jawahar Nagar, Road No.15 Vs. C-11, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400 062. Mumbai-400 051. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafl-1382-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Reepal Tralshawala –Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Satish Chandra Rajore-Ld. Dr

…ould include related costs including interest cost also. The judgments relied upon by the assessee were distinguished on factual matrix. Rather reliance was placed on the decision of Special Bench of Tribunal rendered in Wall Street Construction Ltd. V/s JCIT 101 ITD 156 to arrive at conclusion that interest identifiable with the project should be allowed in the year when the project was completed and corresponding income from that project was offered for taxation. 3.2 The plea of consistency was rejected at para 5.3 by observing as under: - 5.3 As regards the claim of the assessee that it is following the same m…

LAXMI INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 24(3), MUMBAI

The appeal stands partly allowed to the extent indicated in the order

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.6977/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2007-08) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4198/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2008-09) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.6978/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2010-11) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.6979/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2011-12) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4199/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2012-13) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4200/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2013-14) Laxmi Industrial Estate Acit-31(2) बनाम/ 99, Prabhu Niwas Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Room No.708 Jawahar Nagar, Road No.15 Vs. C-11, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400 062. Mumbai-400 051. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafl-1382-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Reepal Tralshawala –Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Satish Chandra Rajore-Ld. Dr

…ould include related costs including interest cost also. The judgments relied upon by the assessee were distinguished on factual matrix. Rather reliance was placed on the decision of Special Bench of Tribunal rendered in Wall Street Construction Ltd. V/s JCIT 101 ITD 156 to arrive at conclusion that interest identifiable with the project should be allowed in the year when the project was completed and corresponding income from that project was offered for taxation. 3.2 The plea of consistency was rejected at para 5.3 by observing as under: - 5.3 As regards the claim of the assessee that it is following the same m…

LAXMI INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 24(3), MUMBAI

The appeal stands partly allowed to the extent indicated in the order

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.6977/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2007-08) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4198/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2008-09) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.6978/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2010-11) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.6979/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2011-12) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4199/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2012-13) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4200/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2013-14) Laxmi Industrial Estate Acit-31(2) बनाम/ 99, Prabhu Niwas Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Room No.708 Jawahar Nagar, Road No.15 Vs. C-11, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400 062. Mumbai-400 051. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafl-1382-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Reepal Tralshawala –Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Satish Chandra Rajore-Ld. Dr

…ould include related costs including interest cost also. The judgments relied upon by the assessee were distinguished on factual matrix. Rather reliance was placed on the decision of Special Bench of Tribunal rendered in Wall Street Construction Ltd. V/s JCIT 101 ITD 156 to arrive at conclusion that interest identifiable with the project should be allowed in the year when the project was completed and corresponding income from that project was offered for taxation. 3.2 The plea of consistency was rejected at para 5.3 by observing as under: - 5.3 As regards the claim of the assessee that it is following the same m…