“project completion method”

DCIT Cir 23(3), Mumbai vs. Shirish M Dalvi, 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

M/S. Param Anand Builders P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 6(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assssee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailita Nos.7726 & 7727/Mum/1994 (A.Ys. 1986-87 & 1987-88) Param Anand Builders Vs. Ito, 6(1) Llp (F Orm Er Ly K Now N As Param Ana Nd Piramal Chambers, B Uilder S P. Lt D. ) Lalbaug, Parel, Plot No. 13/A, Agarwal Bombay – 400 012 Golden Chamber, Fun Republic Road, Andheri West, Mumbai – 400 053 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaxfp7195C Appellant .. Respondent

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee was following project completion method and therefore application of rate of profit becomes redundant ignoring the fact that the assessee itself was shoving profit on estimate basis ... into the various agreement for sale of flats in its project for aggregate consideration of Rs.3,77,34,000/-. The assessee had followed project completion method to account the income earned from the project. A search action u/s 132 of the Act was carried out on the premises

ACIT Circle 6(1), Mumbai vs. Param Anand Builders P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assssee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailita Nos.7726 & 7727/Mum/1994 (A.Ys. 1986-87 & 1987-88) Param Anand Builders Vs. Ito, 6(1) Llp (F Orm Er Ly K Now N As Param Ana Nd Piramal Chambers, B Uilder S P. Lt D. ) Lalbaug, Parel, Plot No. 13/A, Agarwal Bombay – 400 012 Golden Chamber, Fun Republic Road, Andheri West, Mumbai – 400 053 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaxfp7195C Appellant .. Respondent

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee was following project completion method and therefore application of rate of profit becomes redundant ignoring the fact that the assessee itself was shoving profit on estimate basis ... into the various agreement for sale of flats in its project for aggregate consideration of Rs.3,77,34,000/-. The assessee had followed project completion method to account the income earned from the project. A search action u/s 132 of the Act was carried out on the premises

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.30/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) The Assistant Commissioner M/S Neel Siddhi Developers 2Nd Floor, The Emerald Plot No. Of Income Tax 28(2), 195/B, Sec-12, Vashi, Navi Mumbai बिधम/ Mumbai- 400 703 Room No.307, 3Rd Floor, Tower Vs. No.6, Vashi Railway Station Complex, Navi Mumbai- 400 703 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aagfn2744N (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

short term capital gain", and c. Challenging the order of CIT(A) upholding the action of the Assessecoffering business income by applying "project completion method" instead of "percentage completion method.” Facts of the Case: 2. The undisputed facts relevant to the aforesaid grounds as available in the assessment order

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

purposes of the assessee. 5.8. The case of Wall Street constructions Ltd. (2006) 102 TTJ 505 is one where the assessee was following project completion method and therefore the ITAT held that the interest cost shall be debited to work in progress and allowed to be claimed as deduction only

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

purposes of the assessee. 5.8. The case of Wall Street constructions Ltd. (2006) 102 TTJ 505 is one where the assessee was following project completion method and therefore the ITAT held that the interest cost shall be debited to work in progress and allowed to be claimed as deduction only

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

purposes of the assessee. 5.8. The case of Wall Street constructions Ltd. (2006) 102 TTJ 505 is one where the assessee was following project completion method and therefore the ITAT held that the interest cost shall be debited to work in progress and allowed to be claimed as deduction only

DCIT, CC 8(2), Mumbai vs. Skyline Prashasti, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailita Nos.1964/Mum/2021 (A.Y.2013-14) M/S Skyline Prashasti Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As M/S Sky Star) Income Tax-Cc-8(2) Skyline Oasis, Premier 6Th Floor, Room No. 658, Road, Nr. Vidyavihar Aaykar Bhawan, Station, Ghatkoper (W) Maharshi Karve Road Mumbai – 400086 Mumbai - 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Abcfs0618M Appellant .. Respondent Ita Nos.2451/Mum/2021 (A.Y.2013-14) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Skyline Prashasti Income Tax-Cc-8(2) Skyline Oasis, Premier 6Th Floor, Room No. 658, Road, Vidyavihar (W) Aaykar Bhawan, Mumbai – 400086 Maharshi Karve Road Mumbai - 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Abcfs0618M Appellant .. Respondent

real estate developer the revised AS-7 prescribing percentage completion method is not applicable and the AS-9 which provides for project Completion method is applicable. 2. On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.17

M/S. Skyline Prashaasti, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailita Nos.1964/Mum/2021 (A.Y.2013-14) M/S Skyline Prashasti Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As M/S Sky Star) Income Tax-Cc-8(2) Skyline Oasis, Premier 6Th Floor, Room No. 658, Road, Nr. Vidyavihar Aaykar Bhawan, Station, Ghatkoper (W) Maharshi Karve Road Mumbai – 400086 Mumbai - 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Abcfs0618M Appellant .. Respondent Ita Nos.2451/Mum/2021 (A.Y.2013-14) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Skyline Prashasti Income Tax-Cc-8(2) Skyline Oasis, Premier 6Th Floor, Room No. 658, Road, Vidyavihar (W) Aaykar Bhawan, Mumbai – 400086 Maharshi Karve Road Mumbai - 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Abcfs0618M Appellant .. Respondent

real estate developer the revised AS-7 prescribing percentage completion method is not applicable and the AS-9 which provides for project Completion method is applicable. 2. On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.17

Olive Spaces, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -27, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singholive Spaces Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of 1St Floor, Jeevan Deep, Income Tax-27, Building No.Ii, Opp. Room No. 401, 4 Th Floor, Bank Of Baroda, Tower No.6, Vashi Rajawadi, Ghatkoper, Railway Station East, Mumbai – 400077 Commercial Complex, Vashi, New Mumbai - 400703 स्थायीलेखासं./ जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No: Aacfo2135N Appellant .. Respondent

balance NIL) Profit shown in the F.Y. 2015-16 Rs.1,07,91,172 The ld. pr.CIT stated the assessee had accounted sale on project completion method, however on completion of the Project there was a loss which had not verified by the A.O. During the course of appellate proceedings neither

DCIT 27(1), Mumbai vs. Gopuram Developers, Mumbai

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

adopted by the appellant is as per the Accounting Standards. There are two methods of revenue recognition as per the Accounting Standards, viz. Project Completion Method and Percentage Completion Method. Both these method are being followed in the cases of Real Estate Development / Builders. In the instant case the revenue ... assessment order and the above "computation of the profit on the project" it becomes abundantly clear that the A.O. is neither following the Project Completion Method nor the Percentage Completion Method. The A.O. has not invoked the provisions of Section 145(3) and has not rejected the books

Dy CIT Circle-3, Thane vs. M/S Pushpa Developers Co., Thane

In the result, we dismiss this ground of appeal filed by the Revenue

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharshi () & Kavitha Rajagopal () Deputy Commissioner Of Income- Vs M/S Pushpa Developers Company Tax, Circle-3, Thane G-8, Vanraj Chs Ltd, Near Forest Room No.02, 6Th Floor, B-Wing, Colony, Kopri, Thane (E)-400 601 Ashar It Park, Wagle Industrial Pan : Aadfp5631M Estate, Thane(W)-400 604 Appellant Respondent

development of building project named ‘Shriram Project’ and had shown gross total income of Rs.4,68,65,993/- and had followed the project completion method thereby arriving at total income of Rs.27,57,440/-. The assessee filed its return of income for the impugned year on 30/09/2009 declaring total income ... observed that the assessee had claimed deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act of Rs.4,40,90,875/- and had followed the project completion method of accounting. It was submitted that the assessee had developed the said project under government approved SRA Scheme which had commenced on 19/09/2006

Asst CIT 27(2), Navi Mumbai vs. Merit Magnum Construction, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

reasoning that more than one residential unit allotted as individual. The appellant has a housing project at Katarvadavali, Thane. It follows project completion method of accounting in respect of business of construction and development of real estate. There are various projects in firm namely Everest Milestone (Wadala), Everest Woods (Govandi

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-7(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Macrotech Developers Ltd (Successor to M/S Lodha Impression Real Estate Pvt Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

present case. The CIT(A) also held that the fact that in case of Wall Street Construction Ltd. (supra) the assessee was following Project Completion Method whereas the assessee follows percentage of completion method is of no consequence. Thus, following the decision of Special Bench of Tribunal cited supra ... purposes of the assessee. 5.8. The case of Wall Street constructions Ltd. (2006) 102 TTJ 505 is one where the assessee was following project completion method and therefore the ITAT held that the interest cost shall be debited to work in progress and allowed to be claimed as deduction only

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-7(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Macrotech Developers Ltd(Successor to M/S Lodha Impression Real Estate Pvt Ltd)., Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

present case. The CIT(A) also held that the fact that in case of Wall Street Construction Ltd. (supra) the assessee was following Project Completion Method whereas the assessee follows percentage of completion method is of no consequence. Thus, following the decision of Special Bench of Tribunal cited supra ... purposes of the assessee. 5.8. The case of Wall Street constructions Ltd. (2006) 102 TTJ 505 is one where the assessee was following project completion method and therefore the ITAT held that the interest cost shall be debited to work in progress and allowed to be claimed as deduction only

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-7(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Mmr Social Housing Pvt Ltd (Earlier Know As M/S Lodha Buildcon Pvt Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

present case. The CIT(A) also held that the fact that in case of Wall Street Construction Ltd. (supra) the assessee was following Project Completion Method whereas the assessee follows percentage of completion method is of no consequence. Thus, following the decision of Special Bench of Tribunal cited supra ... purposes of the assessee. 5.8. The case of Wall Street constructions Ltd. (2006) 102 TTJ 505 is one where the assessee was following project completion method and therefore the ITAT held that the interest cost shall be debited to work in progress and allowed to be claimed as deduction only

DCIT CC 7(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned AO is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am

Street construction does not apply to the facts of the case for the reason that assessee is following percentage completion method and not project completion method. He was also of the view that ITA no. 1539 & 1594/Mum/2019 Lodha Developers Ltd; A.Y. 15–16 this issue also arose in case ... assessee for business purposes of the assessee." However, the case of Wall Street construction is one where the assessee was following project completion method and therefore the ITAT held that the interest cost shall be debited to work in progress and allowed to be claimed as deduction only

Lodha Developers Ltd.(Successor to Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd.), Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC- 7(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned AO is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am

Street construction does not apply to the facts of the case for the reason that assessee is following percentage completion method and not project completion method. He was also of the view that ITA no. 1539 & 1594/Mum/2019 Lodha Developers Ltd; A.Y. 15–16 this issue also arose in case ... assessee for business purposes of the assessee." However, the case of Wall Street construction is one where the assessee was following project completion method and therefore the ITAT held that the interest cost shall be debited to work in progress and allowed to be claimed as deduction only

Addl.C.I.T. RG. 7(1), Mumbai vs. Peninsula Land Ltd., Mumbai

Assessing Officer of re-computing the business profits of the project „Ashok Towers‟ by adopting his own method while rejecting the project completion method consistently adopted by the Assessee. We note that the CIT(A) had deleted the addition by following the order of CIT(A) in the case