SKYLINE RESIDENCY P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (OSD II) CEN RG 7, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.6910&6912/Mum/2011 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2007-08 & 2008-09) M/S Skyline Residency Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit-(Osd)-Ii, Central Range-7, 4Th Floor, Aykar Acme Compound, Premier Road, Ghatkopar (West), Bhavan, Mumbai Mumbai-400086 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aabcj 2532 L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.7311&7312/Mum/2011 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2007-08 & 2008-09) Dcit-(Osd)-Ii, Central Vs. M/S Skyline Residency Pvt. Range-7, 4Th Floor, Aykar Ltd., Acme Compound, Bhavan, Mumbai Premier Road, Ghatkopar (West), Mumbai-400086 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aabcj 2532 L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Manjunatha R. Swamy सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 29/10/2015 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 16/12/2015 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A), Mumbai, For The Assessment Years 2007-08 & 2008-09, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.143(3) Of The I.T.Act. 2. Common Grounds Have Been Taken In Both The Years Under Consideration, Therefore, Appeals For Both The Years Were Heard Together

TDS 64,928 Advance Tax 5,500,000 Self Assessment Tax 3,500,000 9,064,928 4,043,988 Add:Int.U/s. 234B 1,329,727 234C 603,721 1,933,448 Total tax payable 5,977,436 Less; paid on 25.03.09 1,500,000 07.04.2009 1,000,000 2,500,000 3,477,436 4.9 Although

SKYLINE RESIDENCY P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (OSD II) CEN RG -7, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.6910&6912/Mum/2011 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2007-08 & 2008-09) M/S Skyline Residency Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit-(Osd)-Ii, Central Range-7, 4Th Floor, Aykar Acme Compound, Premier Road, Ghatkopar (West), Bhavan, Mumbai Mumbai-400086 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aabcj 2532 L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.7311&7312/Mum/2011 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2007-08 & 2008-09) Dcit-(Osd)-Ii, Central Vs. M/S Skyline Residency Pvt. Range-7, 4Th Floor, Aykar Ltd., Acme Compound, Bhavan, Mumbai Premier Road, Ghatkopar (West), Mumbai-400086 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aabcj 2532 L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Manjunatha R. Swamy सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 29/10/2015 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 16/12/2015 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A), Mumbai, For The Assessment Years 2007-08 & 2008-09, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.143(3) Of The I.T.Act. 2. Common Grounds Have Been Taken In Both The Years Under Consideration, Therefore, Appeals For Both The Years Were Heard Together

TDS 64,928 Advance Tax 5,500,000 Self Assessment Tax 3,500,000 9,064,928 4,043,988 Add:Int.U/s. 234B 1,329,727 234C 603,721 1,933,448 Total tax payable 5,977,436 Less; paid on 25.03.09 1,500,000 07.04.2009 1,000,000 2,500,000 3,477,436 4.9 Although

ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXCENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4),MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JYOTHY LABS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the captioned appeals by the revenue are partly allowed and cross-objections are allowed in part for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

801B as well as 80IC of the Act in the subject assessment order because the relief allowed in the initial assessment year was not withdrawn at the time of such rejection in the instant year. I.T.A. No. 3863/Mum/2025 I.T.A. No. 3884/Mum/2025 I.T.A. No. 3885/Mum/2025 I.T.A. No. 3879/Mum/2025 I.T.A. No. 3880/Mum/2025 I.T.A. No. 3883/Mum/2025 I.T.A. No. 3881/Mum/2025 I.T.A. No. 3882/Mum/2025

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4),MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JYOTHY LABS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the captioned appeals by the revenue are partly allowed and cross-objections are allowed in part for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

801B as well as 80IC of the Act in the subject assessment order because the relief allowed in the initial assessment year was not withdrawn at the time of such rejection in the instant year. I.T.A. No. 3863/Mum/2025 I.T.A. No. 3884/Mum/2025 I.T.A. No. 3885/Mum/2025 I.T.A. No. 3879/Mum/2025 I.T.A. No. 3880/Mum/2025 I.T.A. No. 3883/Mum/2025 I.T.A. No. 3881/Mum/2025 I.T.A. No. 3882/Mum/2025

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE2,4 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JYOTHY LABS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the captioned appeals by the revenue are partly allowed and cross-objections are allowed in part for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

801B as well as 80IC of the Act in the subject assessment order because the relief allowed in the initial assessment year was not withdrawn at the time of such rejection in the instant year. I.T.A. No. 3863/Mum/2025 I.T.A. No. 3884/Mum/2025 I.T.A. No. 3885/Mum/2025 I.T.A. No. 3879/Mum/2025 I.T.A. No. 3880/Mum/2025 I.T.A. No. 3883/Mum/2025 I.T.A. No. 3881/Mum/2025 I.T.A. No. 3882/Mum/2025

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE2,4 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JYOTHY LABS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the captioned appeals by the revenue are partly allowed and cross-objections are allowed in part for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

801B as well as 80IC of the Act in the subject assessment order because the relief allowed in the initial assessment year was not withdrawn at the time of such rejection in the instant year. I.T.A. No. 3863/Mum/2025 I.T.A. No. 3884/Mum/2025 I.T.A. No. 3885/Mum/2025 I.T.A. No. 3879/Mum/2025 I.T.A. No. 3880/Mum/2025 I.T.A. No. 3883/Mum/2025 I.T.A. No. 3881/Mum/2025 I.T.A. No. 3882/Mum/2025

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE2,4 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JYOTHY LABS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the captioned appeals by the revenue are partly allowed and cross-objections are allowed in part for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

801B as well as 80IC of the Act in the subject assessment order because the relief allowed in the initial assessment year was not withdrawn at the time of such rejection in the instant year. I.T.A. No. 3863/Mum/2025 I.T.A. No. 3884/Mum/2025 I.T.A. No. 3885/Mum/2025 I.T.A. No. 3879/Mum/2025 I.T.A. No. 3880/Mum/2025 I.T.A. No. 3883/Mum/2025 I.T.A. No. 3881/Mum/2025 I.T.A. No. 3882/Mum/2025

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE2,4 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JYOTHY LABS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the captioned appeals by the revenue are partly allowed and cross-objections are allowed in part for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

801B as well as 80IC of the Act in the subject assessment order because the relief allowed in the initial assessment year was not withdrawn at the time of such rejection in the instant year. I.T.A. No. 3863/Mum/2025 I.T.A. No. 3884/Mum/2025 I.T.A. No. 3885/Mum/2025 I.T.A. No. 3879/Mum/2025 I.T.A. No. 3880/Mum/2025 I.T.A. No. 3883/Mum/2025 I.T.A. No. 3881/Mum/2025 I.T.A. No. 3882/Mum/2025

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE2,4 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JYOTHY LABS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the captioned appeals by the revenue are partly allowed and cross-objections are allowed in part for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

801B as well as 80IC of the Act in the subject assessment order because the relief allowed in the initial assessment year was not withdrawn at the time of such rejection in the instant year. I.T.A. No. 3863/Mum/2025 I.T.A. No. 3884/Mum/2025 I.T.A. No. 3885/Mum/2025 I.T.A. No. 3879/Mum/2025 I.T.A. No. 3880/Mum/2025 I.T.A. No. 3883/Mum/2025 I.T.A. No. 3881/Mum/2025 I.T.A. No. 3882/Mum/2025

ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXCENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4),MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JYOTHY LABS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the captioned appeals by the revenue are partly allowed and cross-objections are allowed in part for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

801B as well as 80IC of the Act in the subject assessment order because the relief allowed in the initial assessment year was not withdrawn at the time of such rejection in the instant year. I.T.A. No. 3863/Mum/2025 I.T.A. No. 3884/Mum/2025 I.T.A. No. 3885/Mum/2025 I.T.A. No. 3879/Mum/2025 I.T.A. No. 3880/Mum/2025 I.T.A. No. 3883/Mum/2025 I.T.A. No. 3881/Mum/2025 I.T.A. No. 3882/Mum/2025

DCIT CEN CIR 15 & 16, MUMBAI vs. VIJAY GRIHNIRMAN P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

801B(10). 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in allowing the claim of the assessee u/s. 80IB(10) despite noting that the assessee had filed only consolidated audit report and not separate audit report in respect of each project as mandatory under Rule 18BBB. 4. The Appellant

DCIT CEN CIR 15 & 16, MUMBAI vs. VIJAY GRIHNIRMAN P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

801B(10). 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in allowing the claim of the assessee u/s. 80IB(10) despite noting that the assessee had filed only consolidated audit report and not separate audit report in respect of each project as mandatory under Rule 18BBB. 4. The Appellant

DCIT CEN CIR 15 & 16, MUMBAI vs. VIJAY GRIHNIRMAN P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

801B(10). 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in allowing the claim of the assessee u/s. 80IB(10) despite noting that the assessee had filed only consolidated audit report and not separate audit report in respect of each project as mandatory under Rule 18BBB. 4. The Appellant

DCIT CEN CIR 15 & 16, MUMBAI vs. VIJAY GRIHNIRMAN P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

801B(10). 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in allowing the claim of the assessee u/s. 80IB(10) despite noting that the assessee had filed only consolidated audit report and not separate audit report in respect of each project as mandatory under Rule 18BBB. 4. The Appellant

DCIT CEN CIR 15 & 16, MUMBAI vs. VIJAY GRIHNIRMAN P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

801B(10). 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in allowing the claim of the assessee u/s. 80IB(10) despite noting that the assessee had filed only consolidated audit report and not separate audit report in respect of each project as mandatory under Rule 18BBB. 4. The Appellant

DCIT CEN CIR 15 & 16, MUMBAI vs. VIJAY GRIHNIRMAN P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

801B(10). 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in allowing the claim of the assessee u/s. 80IB(10) despite noting that the assessee had filed only consolidated audit report and not separate audit report in respect of each project as mandatory under Rule 18BBB. 4. The Appellant

MORESHWAR KRUSHNA BARIA,VIRAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3, THANE, THANE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

801B(10) has been claimed in respect of income offered to tax for projects entitled for such deduction." 7.6 The submission of the assessee was carefully considered vis a vis the details available on record. It is seen these loose paper bundles evidence that the assessee is accepting cash as 'on money' over and above the sale agreement value

RAJESH BUILDER,MUMBAI vs. CIT 22, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

801B (10) rebate on the same. In support of the same the appellant has cited case law of Bhrama Associate vs. JCIT. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 24 of 33 ITA No.2954 & 2955, 6131 & 3454/Mum/2012 Rajesh Builder s (AYs:04-05,05-06,07-08,08-09) 7.4 As far as the issue if a project which is approved as residential cum commercial

DCIT 22(2), NAVI MUMBAI vs. RAJESH BUILDERS, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

801B (10) rebate on the same. In support of the same the appellant has cited case law of Bhrama Associate vs. JCIT. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 24 of 33 ITA No.2954 & 2955, 6131 & 3454/Mum/2012 Rajesh Builder s (AYs:04-05,05-06,07-08,08-09) 7.4 As far as the issue if a project which is approved as residential cum commercial