BHARAT TUKARAM BHOIR,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO 28 (1)92), MUMBAI

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 895/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Bharat Tukaram Bhor Acit–28(1), बिधम/ 218/219, Raheja Arcade, R. No. 306, 3Rd Floor, 6Th Sector- 11, Cbd Belapur, Tower, Vashi Rly Station Vs. Navi Mumbai- 400 614 Complex, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 703 (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 288/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ito 28(1)(2), Bharat Tukaram Bhor Pro. M/S Jai Gurudeo Bldr Tower No. 6 Flr Vashi Rly बिधम/ & Developers, 218/219, Station Complex, Navi Vs. Raheja Arcade, Sector-11, Mumbai- 400 703 Cbd Belapur, Navi Mumbai- 400 614 (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 287/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Bharat Tukaram Bhor Addlcit Rg 22(3), Pro. M/S Jai Gurudeo Bldr Tower No. 6, 3Rd Flr Vashi बिधम/ & Developers, 218/219, Rly Station Complex, Vashi, Vs. Raheja Arcade, Sector-11, Navi Mumbai-400 703 Cbd Belapur, Navi Mumbai- 400 614 (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

c) of section 80IB(10) is 1500 sq ft and not 1000 sq ft As, none of the residential units have area exceeding 1500 sq ft no disallowance of deduction was warranted. The appellant has further submitted that: i. The word used in section 801B

BHARAT TULARAM BHOIR,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT 28 (1), MUMBAI

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 895/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Bharat Tukaram Bhor Acit–28(1), बिधम/ 218/219, Raheja Arcade, R. No. 306, 3Rd Floor, 6Th Sector- 11, Cbd Belapur, Tower, Vashi Rly Station Vs. Navi Mumbai- 400 614 Complex, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 703 (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 288/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ito 28(1)(2), Bharat Tukaram Bhor Pro. M/S Jai Gurudeo Bldr Tower No. 6 Flr Vashi Rly बिधम/ & Developers, 218/219, Station Complex, Navi Vs. Raheja Arcade, Sector-11, Mumbai- 400 703 Cbd Belapur, Navi Mumbai- 400 614 (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 287/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Bharat Tukaram Bhor Addlcit Rg 22(3), Pro. M/S Jai Gurudeo Bldr Tower No. 6, 3Rd Flr Vashi बिधम/ & Developers, 218/219, Rly Station Complex, Vashi, Vs. Raheja Arcade, Sector-11, Navi Mumbai-400 703 Cbd Belapur, Navi Mumbai- 400 614 (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

c) of section 80IB(10) is 1500 sq ft and not 1000 sq ft As, none of the residential units have area exceeding 1500 sq ft no disallowance of deduction was warranted. The appellant has further submitted that: i. The word used in section 801B

BHARAT TUKARAM BHOIR,MUMBAI vs. ADDLCIT RG 22 (3), MUMBAI

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 895/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Bharat Tukaram Bhor Acit–28(1), बिधम/ 218/219, Raheja Arcade, R. No. 306, 3Rd Floor, 6Th Sector- 11, Cbd Belapur, Tower, Vashi Rly Station Vs. Navi Mumbai- 400 614 Complex, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 703 (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 288/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ito 28(1)(2), Bharat Tukaram Bhor Pro. M/S Jai Gurudeo Bldr Tower No. 6 Flr Vashi Rly बिधम/ & Developers, 218/219, Station Complex, Navi Vs. Raheja Arcade, Sector-11, Mumbai- 400 703 Cbd Belapur, Navi Mumbai- 400 614 (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 287/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Bharat Tukaram Bhor Addlcit Rg 22(3), Pro. M/S Jai Gurudeo Bldr Tower No. 6, 3Rd Flr Vashi बिधम/ & Developers, 218/219, Rly Station Complex, Vashi, Vs. Raheja Arcade, Sector-11, Navi Mumbai-400 703 Cbd Belapur, Navi Mumbai- 400 614 (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

c) of section 80IB(10) is 1500 sq ft and not 1000 sq ft As, none of the residential units have area exceeding 1500 sq ft no disallowance of deduction was warranted. The appellant has further submitted that: i. The word used in section 801B

ASST CIT 28(1), NAVI MUMBAI vs. BHARAT TUKARAM BHOR, NAVI MUMBAI

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 895/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Bharat Tukaram Bhor Acit–28(1), बिधम/ 218/219, Raheja Arcade, R. No. 306, 3Rd Floor, 6Th Sector- 11, Cbd Belapur, Tower, Vashi Rly Station Vs. Navi Mumbai- 400 614 Complex, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 703 (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 288/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ito 28(1)(2), Bharat Tukaram Bhor Pro. M/S Jai Gurudeo Bldr Tower No. 6 Flr Vashi Rly बिधम/ & Developers, 218/219, Station Complex, Navi Vs. Raheja Arcade, Sector-11, Mumbai- 400 703 Cbd Belapur, Navi Mumbai- 400 614 (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 287/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Bharat Tukaram Bhor Addlcit Rg 22(3), Pro. M/S Jai Gurudeo Bldr Tower No. 6, 3Rd Flr Vashi बिधम/ & Developers, 218/219, Rly Station Complex, Vashi, Vs. Raheja Arcade, Sector-11, Navi Mumbai-400 703 Cbd Belapur, Navi Mumbai- 400 614 (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

c) of section 80IB(10) is 1500 sq ft and not 1000 sq ft As, none of the residential units have area exceeding 1500 sq ft no disallowance of deduction was warranted. The appellant has further submitted that: i. The word used in section 801B

ASST CIT 28(1) , NAVI MUMBAI vs. BHARAT TUKARAM BHOR , NAVI MUMBAI

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 895/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Bharat Tukaram Bhor Acit–28(1), बिधम/ 218/219, Raheja Arcade, R. No. 306, 3Rd Floor, 6Th Sector- 11, Cbd Belapur, Tower, Vashi Rly Station Vs. Navi Mumbai- 400 614 Complex, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 703 (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 288/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ito 28(1)(2), Bharat Tukaram Bhor Pro. M/S Jai Gurudeo Bldr Tower No. 6 Flr Vashi Rly बिधम/ & Developers, 218/219, Station Complex, Navi Vs. Raheja Arcade, Sector-11, Mumbai- 400 703 Cbd Belapur, Navi Mumbai- 400 614 (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 287/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Bharat Tukaram Bhor Addlcit Rg 22(3), Pro. M/S Jai Gurudeo Bldr Tower No. 6, 3Rd Flr Vashi बिधम/ & Developers, 218/219, Rly Station Complex, Vashi, Vs. Raheja Arcade, Sector-11, Navi Mumbai-400 703 Cbd Belapur, Navi Mumbai- 400 614 (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

c) of section 80IB(10) is 1500 sq ft and not 1000 sq ft As, none of the residential units have area exceeding 1500 sq ft no disallowance of deduction was warranted. The appellant has further submitted that: i. The word used in section 801B

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

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

801B (10) on Gawan Pada project cannot be disallowed on the basis that area on standalone of the plot is more than one acre? The Court has held as under In so far as question (b) is concerned counsel for the parties state that the same is covered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by the decisions

BHAVYA CONSTRUCTION CO.,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 21(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the assessee's appeals ITA No

disallowance. Appellant assessee\npreferred an appeal before this Tribunal against the order\ndated 22.01.2010 passed by learned CIT(A) and produced\nnotification No. S4 1896(E) dated 03.08.2010 issued by the\nCBDT, for the first time before the Tribunal. The tribunal, vide\norder dated 14.10.2011 passed in ITA No. 3090/MUM/2010\nfor A.Y. 2006-07 set aside the orders passed

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

801B (10) to the appellant in respect of project Aum Residency subject, however, to the appellant meets the other conditions specified in the said section like area of flat, commercial area, etc. In the result, this ground of appeal is allowed.” 15. Before us the Ld. Counsel of the assessee referred to ‘JV cancellation agreement’ dated 08/04/2009, which is placed

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

801B (10) to the appellant in respect of project Aum Residency subject, however, to the appellant meets the other conditions specified in the said section like area of flat, commercial area, etc. In the result, this ground of appeal is allowed.” 15. Before us the Ld. Counsel of the assessee referred to ‘JV cancellation agreement’ dated 08/04/2009, which is placed

ITO 24(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. NEETA ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Sanjay Aroraassessment Year: 2009-10 Ito-24 (3)(2), M/S Neeta Enterprises, Ro. No.704, C-11, 7Th Floor, 141, Gundecha House, बनाम/ B.K.C. Bandra(East), Jawahar Nagar, Vs. Mumbai-400051 Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400062 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Aacgn4947M

C and this is 100% residential project admeasuring an area of 5499.17 sq.mts., which is more than one acre. Relying to the development agreement it was submitted that the total development rights in respect of total area were to the tune of 409272 sq.fts., out of which approved area was 274272 sq.fts. Out of the total developed area the assessee

DCIT- CIRCLE - 3 , MUMBAI vs. OMKAR BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS, THANE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.248/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Dcit Circle-3, Thane बिधम/ M/S. Omkar Builders & Room No.02, 6Th Floor, Developers Vs. Aashar It Park, B-Wing, A-1/54, Shah & Nahar Wagle Industrial Estate, Industrial Estate Sitaram Road No.16Z, Thane (W- Jadhav Marg, Lower Parel 400604. (W), Mumbai-400013. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabfo3908J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Jitendra Singh (Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21/01/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/02/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 08.10.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -02, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2014- 15. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

801B(10) on pro rata basis in respect of units which fulfilled all the conditions. During the course of appellate proceeding the submitted that the pro rata profit on sale of flats/units which fulfils all the conditions as prescribed in section 80'13(10)- is to the extent of Rs.7,30,08,477/- being 54%, of the profit from construction

ITO 32(3)(5), MUMBAI vs. VANDANA PROPERTIES, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 1396 & 1397/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years:2011-12 & 2012-13) Income Tax Officer-32(3)(5), M/S Vandana Properties Room No. 104, 1St Floor, B-602, Prem Nagar, 06, Mcf बिधम/ Bldg. No. C-11, Udyan Marg, Borivali (West), Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 092. Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aaafv3003F (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

801B(10) of the l.T.Act,1961 of Rs. 2,11,98,951/- despite the fact that the assessee do not fulfil the conditions prescribed in this section. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the fact that the Commencement Certificate for the construction activities

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

section 80IB (10) of the Act and he disallowed the deduction. Aggrieved assessee preferred the appeal before CIT(A), who also confirmed the disallowance of deduction by observed as under: - Page 23 of 33 ITA No.2954 & 2955, 6131 & 3454/Mum/2012 Rajesh Builder s (AYs:04-05,05-06,07-08,08-09) “7.1. The A.O. has thus disallowed rebate u/s.80