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

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

RAJESH BUILDER,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 22(2), 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

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

DCIT (OSD-II) C RG 7, MUMBAI vs. SKYLINE RESIDENCYH P. LTD, 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

ACIT 17(1), MUMBAI vs. FORTALEZA DEVELOPERS, MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed, then ground 2 of Revenue’s appeal wiil become infructuous

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

TDS on this amount only. The interest amount Rs.29, 74,500/- pertaining to flat purchasers has been kept separate and included in the separate balance sheet and receipt payment account prepared, got audited and submitted to the members." 14. However, the Assessing Officer did not accept the submissions of the assessee and assessed the aforesaid interest income as income

FORTALEZA DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. ITO 15(1)(3), MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed, then ground 2 of Revenue’s appeal wiil become infructuous

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

TDS on this amount only. The interest amount Rs.29, 74,500/- pertaining to flat purchasers has been kept separate and included in the separate balance sheet and receipt payment account prepared, got audited and submitted to the members." 14. However, the Assessing Officer did not accept the submissions of the assessee and assessed the aforesaid interest income as income

FORTALEZA DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 15(1), MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed, then ground 2 of Revenue’s appeal wiil become infructuous

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

TDS on this amount only. The interest amount Rs.29, 74,500/- pertaining to flat purchasers has been kept separate and included in the separate balance sheet and receipt payment account prepared, got audited and submitted to the members." 14. However, the Assessing Officer did not accept the submissions of the assessee and assessed the aforesaid interest income as income

ACIT 17(1), MUMBAI vs. FORTALEZA DEVELOPERS, MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed, then ground 2 of Revenue’s appeal wiil become infructuous

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

TDS on this amount only. The interest amount Rs.29, 74,500/- pertaining to flat purchasers has been kept separate and included in the separate balance sheet and receipt payment account prepared, got audited and submitted to the members." 14. However, the Assessing Officer did not accept the submissions of the assessee and assessed the aforesaid interest income as income

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITED, MUMBAI

801B & 10B and are in no way dependent on\nthe said new industrial undertakings and therefore cannot be considered and\nallocated in arriving at the amount of profits derived from the said\nundertakings.\nExpenditure attributable to earning of tax-free income - Section 14A\ndisallowance\n4. erred in confirming disallowance under section 14A in respect of\nexpenditure in relation

HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY.CIT-1(1)(2), MUMBAI

801B & 10B and are in no way dependent on\nthe said new industrial undertakings and therefore cannot be considered and\nallocated in arriving at the amount of profits derived from the said\nundertakings.\nExpenditure attributable to earning of tax-free income - Section 14A\ndisallowance\n4. erred in confirming disallowance under section 14A in respect of\nexpenditure in relation

ACIT/DCIT 31(2), MUMBAI vs. PATEL PRATIBHA JV, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

TDS was deducted as a contractor. By the impugned order, CIT(A) allowed the assessee’s claim after observing as under :- “5.3. I have gone through the facts as well as the contentions of the appellant. Section 80-IA of Act provides for- deduction of 100% of profit derived by an enterprise or undertaking from any business referred

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