“project completion method”

Arihant Associates, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-17, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blearihant Associates V. Pr.Cit – Mumbai – 17 Anand Tower-C, Bldg.42 Room No. 120, 1St Floor Tilak Nagar, Chembur Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C-43 G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai -400089 Bandra(E), Mumbai - 400051 Pan: Aapfa1588C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Ruturaj Gurjar Department Represented By : Shri R.M. Madhavi

reported any sales from sale of units during the year under appeal in view of the fact that it is following project completion method and since the project was completed in Asst Year 2015-16, the assessee had reported the sale of units as its turnover in Asst Year

ACIT -893) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Triple Securities Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

allowing the deduction of interest cost u/s 36(i)(iii) of the I.T. Act, 1961 without appreciating the facts the assessee in following project completion method of accounting and during the previous year the assessee has not recognized any revenue to the P&L account. Hence interest cost incurred also ... year. 27. Being aggrieved the Revenue is now in appeal before us. 28. The Learned Departmental Representative submitted that the Assessee is following project completion method of accounting for revenues from its solitary construction project. No revenue has been offered to tax by the Appellant during the relevant assessment year

Majestic Premises Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC -2, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudharymagestic Premises Vs. Dcit, Cc-2 Private Limited 6Th Floor, Room No. 13 201, Oasis Silver Stone, A-Wing, Ashar I.T. Park, Ram Maruti Road Near Thane – 400 604 Gajanan Maharaj Temple Thane – 400602 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaecm5625L Appellant .. Respondent

development of the road. The said Oasis Sapphire project was under work in progress stage and the assessee company had followed the project completion method but subsequently the project scrapped which showed that TDR was connected to the project undertaken by the ITA No.689/Mum/2022 A.Y.2013-14 7 Magestic Premises

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

been rendered in a case where the assessee was offering to tax income from the project on completion of the project by following project completion method whereas in the present case percentage completion method is being followed. Identical ground raised by the 5 ITA. No. 2154 /Mum/2022 Assessment Year

M/S. Fatima Builders & Developers, Mumbai vs. ITO 26(1)(4), Mumbai

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

this working is based on his own estimate. 2) The learned CIT (A) has erred in Confirming the project completion method of accounting for which the learned ITO. has objected and as per his view the said method accounting is not under accounting standard prescribed by the law, which ... accept the contention of the appellant that more than 30% work is incomplete upto331/03/2014,but by own imagination, eventhough the appellant is following project completion method of accounting and could not determine the profit of his incompletion project. 7) The learned ITO has erred in adding the amount of Rs22.33.725

DCIT Cent. Cir 1(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Hiranandani Construction Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Vs. M/S. Hiranandani Central Circle – 1(2) Constructions Pvt Ltd 906, 9Th Floor, Pratishta 511, Dalmal Towers, Bhavan, Old Cgo Bldg 211, Nariman Point, (Annexe), Mk Road, Mumbai – 400021. Mumbai – 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaach0409H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Tejinder Pal Singh Anand, Sr Dr Respondent By : Shri K Gopal Sr. Adv & Shri Om Kandalkar, Adv Date Of Hearing 03.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 15.11.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)(Cit(A)-47, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Rs.23,49,034/- related to construction of inventory without M/s Hiranandani Constructions Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. considering the fact that the assessee follows Project Completion Method and therefore these expenses were liable to be capitalized to work-in-progress. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... correct in allowing the expenditure of Rs.68,53,106/- related to previously completed projects without considering the fact that as the assessee follows Project Completion Method the assessee could not claim any further expenditure on the completed projects. 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

ACIT 28(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Neel Siddhi Developers, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleacit 28(2) Vs. M/S Neel Siddhi Room No. 307, 3Rd Floor Developers, Tower No. 6, Vashi Rly 2Nd Floor, Emerald, Stn Complex, Vashi Plot No. 195/B, Navi Mumbai – 400703 Sec-12, Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400 703. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagfn2744N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Chetan M. Kacha.Dr Respondent By : Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi.Ar Date Of Hearing 14.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 24.11.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 26, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

under taken several projects and one of the project being Neel Sidhi Amarante and Neel Sidhi Vista the assessee is following the project completion method for disclosing the income. Whereas the AO found that for the A.Y 2011-12 the preceding officer has discussed at length on facts and projects ... considered the grounds of appeal, submissions on the validity of assessment proceedings and projects, findings of the scrutiny assessment proceedings and the project completion method applied by the assessee. The CIT(A) has dealt on the judicial decisions and confirmed the validity of the assessment and further directed

Credence Property Developers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - CC -2(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3574/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15) Credence Property बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-2(4) Developers Pvt. Ltd. Ito Old Cgo Building, Vs. 702, Natraj M. V. Road, Mumbai. Junction W.E. Highway, Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400069. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcc9387Q (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Yogesh Joijode Revenue By: Ms. Hiren Bhatt (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01/11/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/11/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-48, Mumbai Dated 27.04.2018 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Only Ground Raised By The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Not Allowing The Tds Credit Of Rs.1,68,318/- On The Ground That The Assessee Has Not Disclosed Income From Its Construction Activities.

./CTS No. 484,484/1 to 7 has been found mentioned. According to the Ld. AR, the assessee was following the project completion method and has offered the income in AY. 2020-21 (since completion certificate was dated 03.03.2020). And therefore, the assessee’s limited prayer before us, [which has been

ITO 28 )(2)(3), Navi Mumbai vs. M/S N G Group, Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the learned Assessing Officer is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am M/S Ng Group Ito, 28(2)(3) Plot No.8, Sector 11, Opp R. No. 310, 3 Rd Floor, Juinagar Rly Station, Vashi Rly Station Complex, Vs. Vashi Navi Mumbai Sanpada, Mumbai-400 703 Navi Mumbai–400 709 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaffn9159E M/S Ng Group Ito, 28(2)(3) Plot No.8, Sector 11, Opp R. No. 310, 3 Rd Floor, Juinagar Rly Station, Vashi Rly Station Complex, Vs. Sanpada, Vashi Navi Mumbai Mumbai-400 703 Navi Mumbai–400 709 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaffn9159E Assessee By : Ms. Nishita Mandalaywala, Ar Revenue By : Dr. Mahesh Akhade, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.11.2022

assessment, the learned Assessing Officer verified the project profitability of Ellora. He found that assessee has not recognized sales though it follows Project Completion Method. The assessee has declared net profit of ₹2,67,34,731/- and shown work-in-progress carried forward of ₹22,12,89,283/-, resulting into ... learned Assessing Officer rejected the methodology followed by the assessee because assessee did not recognize sales even though it follows the Project Completion Method. The assessee states that assessee has already declared profit of ₹2,67,34,730/- for the year attributable to the project and further final profit

Shirish M Dalvi, Kalyan vs. DCIT Cir 29(3), Mumbai

Accordingly, we uphold the finding of Ld CIT(A). The ground No. four of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shirish M. Dalvi, Dcit Circle-23(3), D’ Block, 1St Floor, Zojwala 3Rd Floor, C-10, Pratyaksha Vs. Complex, Sahajanand Kar Bhavan, Bandra East, Chowk, Kalyan-421 301. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadpd 0358 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit Circle-23(3), Shirish M. Dalvi, Room No. 402, 4Th Floor, C-10 D’ Block, 1St Floor, Zojwala Vs. Bldg., Pratyakshakar Complex, Sahajanand Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Chowk, Kalyan-421 301. Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadpd 0358 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shirish M. Dalvi, Dcit-29(3), D’ Block, 1St Floor, Zojwala Room No. 402, 4Th Floor, C- Vs. Complex, Sahajanand 10, Pratyaksha Kar Chowk, Kalyan-421 301. Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra, Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadpd 0358 H

assessee and found that till 31/03/2011, the assessee has maintained a common account for both the wings (i.e. A & B) under the project completion method, however for the current year only splitted the accounts for wing A and B. The relevant finding of the learned assessing officer is reproduced ... certificate forms the part of this order as annexure B. b) It is important to point out that the assessee is following the project completion method for the entire project and till the year ending 31-3-2011 and has maintained a common account for both the wings