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

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

housing properties, is\nthat the construction of the project approved before the first\nday of April 2004, should have been completed on or before\nthe 31st day of March 2008. It is noticed that the Slum\nRehabilitation Authority approved assessee's project on\n10.06.1990 vide SRA approval letter at page 56-61 of\nassessee's paper book commencement certificate

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) that in a case where the approval in respeet of the housing project is obtained more than once. such housing project shall he deemed to have been approved on the date on which the building plan of such housing project is first approved by the local authority. In view of the discussions made carlier and as evident from

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) that in a case where the approval in respeet of the housing project is obtained more than once. such housing project shall he deemed to have been approved on the date on which the building plan of such housing project is first approved by the local authority. In view of the discussions made carlier and as evident from

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

Properties, 353 ITR 36 (Bom) and reference was made to the following observations: “The expression “housing projects” is neither defined under Section 2 of Act nor under section 801B

SHREECHAND BUILDERS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 9(3)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Hon‟Ble Sh.R. C. Sharma, Am& Hon‟Ble Sandeep Gosain, Jm

Properties [Bombay HC]Para 27. Moreover, plain reading of Section 801B (10) does not even remotely suggest that the plot of land having minimum area of one acre must be vacant. The said Section allows deduction to a housing

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

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. BOMBAY SLUM REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2015-16

Section 801B(10). These matters went up to Hon'ble Tribunal and in all these ese matters went up to Hon'ble Tribunal and in all these ese matters went up to Hon'ble Tribunal and in all these Bombay Slum Redevelopment Bombay Slum Redevelopment 8 Corporation Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 6126/MUM/2025 years, Hon'ble ITAT has upheld the claim

S.B. ENTERPRISES,THANE vs. ITO WD 3(3), THANE

Bench: Sh. R. C. Sharma, Am & Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6749/Mum/2014 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

housing project was not prescribed. A specific limit has been prescribed by section 801B(10)(d) of the I.T. Act w.e.f. 01.04.2005. The appellant's project was approved on 16.11.2007 and therefore, pre-amended 8 I.T.A. No. 6749/Mum/2014 M/s S. B. Enterprises provisions of section 801B(10) were not applicable in the appellant's case. Therefore, no proportionate deduction

ITO 33(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. R.J. CONSTRUCTON, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Income Tax Officer R.J. Construction 3Rd Floor, C-10 R. No. 305 Bkc A-101 Krishant Bldg Opp Apollo Mumbai-400051 Vs. Hospital M.G. Rd, Kandivlai (W) Mumbai-400067 Pan No. Aaafr4765R Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By .. Keyuri Desai,Ar Revenue By .. Aarsi Prasad, Dr Date Of Hearing .. 21-06-2017 Date Of Pronouncement .. 12-07-2017 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

Properties referred supra wherein the Hon’ble Bombay High Court have mulled over the issue and have decided that 801B(10)(b) specifies the size of the plot of land but not the size of the housing project. While the plot must have a minimum area of one acre, it need not be a vacant plot. The object of Section

MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CENTRAL RANGE-7(3), MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

property taxes till handing over possession to clients, infrastructure charges, legal and other charges incurred during construction are integral part of the project and hence, derived from the project to be eligible for deduction under section 801B of the Act. 3) The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete the said ground of appeal. 3. The relevant facts

ACIT-24(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S.ATUL PROPERTIES, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 4393 & 4394/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years:2010-11 & 2011-12) Acit-24(1) बिधम/ M/S. Atul Properties Room No.604, Piramal 501-502, Trade Avenue, Off Vs. Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Suren Road, Western Express Mumbai-400012. Highway, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400093. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aamfa3756F (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Damor (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Naresh Jain/Mahaveer Jain & Ms. Carmi Shroff सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/05/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/06/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeal Preferred By Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-36, Mumbai Dated 29.12.2017 For A.Y.2010-11 & 2011- 12 Respectively.

Properties 2002-03 to 2007-08. Assessee was a builder and developer company - it undertook a mega housing project was approved in the year 2000. Assessee completed a part of project and obtained completion certificate for that part of project from Municipal Corporation on 10- 10-2008. Assessee sought exemption under section 80-IB(10). Assessing Officer denied assessee

ACIT-24(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S.ATUL PROPERTIES, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 4393 & 4394/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years:2010-11 & 2011-12) Acit-24(1) बिधम/ M/S. Atul Properties Room No.604, Piramal 501-502, Trade Avenue, Off Vs. Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Suren Road, Western Express Mumbai-400012. Highway, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400093. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aamfa3756F (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Damor (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Naresh Jain/Mahaveer Jain & Ms. Carmi Shroff सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/05/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/06/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeal Preferred By Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-36, Mumbai Dated 29.12.2017 For A.Y.2010-11 & 2011- 12 Respectively.

Properties 2002-03 to 2007-08. Assessee was a builder and developer company - it undertook a mega housing project was approved in the year 2000. Assessee completed a part of project and obtained completion certificate for that part of project from Municipal Corporation on 10- 10-2008. Assessee sought exemption under section 80-IB(10). Assessing Officer denied assessee

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

Property Developers discussed above are applicable on the facts of the present case. We further noted that the profit arising to the assessee is on account of appreciation of value of the plot Page 20 of 33 ITA No.2954 & 2955, 6131 & 3454/Mum/2012 Rajesh Builder s (AYs:04-05,05-06,07-08,08-09) and not on account

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

Property Developers discussed above are applicable on the facts of the present case. We further noted that the profit arising to the assessee is on account of appreciation of value of the plot Page 20 of 33 ITA No.2954 & 2955, 6131 & 3454/Mum/2012 Rajesh Builder s (AYs:04-05,05-06,07-08,08-09) and not on account

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

Property Developers discussed above are applicable on the facts of the present case. We further noted that the profit arising to the assessee is on account of appreciation of value of the plot Page 20 of 33 ITA No.2954 & 2955, 6131 & 3454/Mum/2012 Rajesh Builder s (AYs:04-05,05-06,07-08,08-09) and not on account

ITO 3(2)(4), MUMBAI vs. OMEGA INVESTMENT & PROPERTIES LTD., MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.868/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Income Tax Officer 3(2) (4) बिधम/ M/S. Omega Investment & Room No. 673,6Th Floor, Properties Ltd Vs. 32-B, Jolly Maker Chambers Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, No.2 Nariman Point, Mumbai- Mumbai- 400020. 400021. स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaco0978L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Mr. Rakesh Joshi Revenue By: Mr. Asif Karmani, Sr. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27/10/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/12/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

section 801B(10) of the Act where approval in respect of the housing project had been obtained more than once, such project 16 AY 2007-08 M/s Omega Investment and Properties

ACIT- 3(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. MM/S SANOFI INDIA LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS AVENTIS PHARMA LTD)., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

section 80HHC(3) and or as part of profits of business itself 6. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in not upholding the Assessing Officer not to deduct the deduction u/s 801B amounting to Rs. 8,21,42,894/- while determining profit eligible for deduction u/s. 80HHC

M/S SANOFI INDIA LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS AVENTIS PHARMA LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT RG 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

section 80HHC(3) and or as part of profits of business itself 6. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in not upholding the Assessing Officer not to deduct the deduction u/s 801B amounting to Rs. 8,21,42,894/- while determining profit eligible for deduction u/s. 80HHC