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

68 shops included in the housing project of tenements exceeded 5% of the aggregate built of tenements exceeded 5% of the aggregate built- -up area of the housing housing housing project. project. project. thereby thereby thereby contravening contravening contravening the the the provisions provisions provisions of Sec. of of Sec. Sec. 801B(10)(d) of the Act. 801B(10

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)

section 801B(10) were not applicable in the appellant's case. Therefore, no proportionate deduction can be allowed to the appellant in terms of the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court (supra). 15. Another reason for denying deduction u/s 801B(l0) to the appellant has been mentioned by the AO in para 3(iii) of the assessment order

ASST CIT CIR 21(3), MUMBAI vs. SUNCITY HOUSING, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5183/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11)

801B(10) which was claimed for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 for the project Neptune. The total income shown in project Neptune in A.Y.2009-10 is Rs.11,54,52,219/- and income for A.Y. 2010-11 is Rs. 3,35,12,657/- totaling of Rs.14,89,64,876/- which was claimed as deduction u/s 80IB (10). Now I apprehend that

M/S. AMEYA BUILDERS & PROPERTY DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, THANE

801B(10) on the income embedded on 'on money' receipt without appreciating the fact that new claim of deduction or allowance cannot be made during reassessment / assessment under section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing additional

ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, THANE vs. M/S. AMEYA BUILDERS & PROPERTY DEVELOPERS, MUMBAI

801B(10) on the income embedded on 'on money' receipt without appreciating the fact that new claim of deduction or allowance cannot be made during reassessment / assessment under section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing additional

ASST CIT CIR 23, MUMBAI vs. OBEROI REALITY LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross- objection of filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhthe Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax,Cir.23, Room No.409, 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Mk Road, Mumbai 400 002 ... Appellant

801B(10) of Rs.71,99,25,721/-. The assessee has claimed deduction of Rs. 71,99,25,721/- u/s 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act 1961 in the return. The assessee had income of Rs. 68,18,56,583/- under the head Business and Profession. Therefore the assessee has claimed and has been allowed deduction in excess

ACIT 15(3), MUMBAI vs. NEELKANTH PALM REALTY, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

68% of the project. Subsequently, vide the impugned order dated 19.02.2013, the AO has levied penalty also for such disallowance. 3. By the impugned order, the CIT(A) deleted the penalty after observing as under :- “The facts of the case and the submissions of the assessee have been considered carefully. It is not in dispute that assessee has disclosed

ITO 32(2)(5), MUMBAI vs. PRATHMESH REALTORS, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh

section 80IB(10) of the Act at ₹ 2,78,749/- as against the claim of assessee of ₹ 47,68,710/-. For this Revenue has raised the following three grounds: - “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in restricting the disallowance u/s 801B

PESHWA CONSTRUCTION,MUMBAI vs. CIT 15, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3631/Mum/2014 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10) M/S Peshwa Construction, बनाम/ Commissioner Of Income Tax,15, R.No.124, 1St Floor,Matru Mandir, 595, Narendra Villa, Vs. Dr.Ambedkar Road, Tardeo Road, Matunga (Cr), Mumbai-400007 Mumbai-400019 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) स्थायी ऱेखा सुं./ Pan : Aaifp6690H (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

801B(10) is a provision for deduction/exemption, it has to be construed strictly. It is the duty of the assessee to make a claim for exemption and place relevant materials before the AO in support thereof and to prove that his case falls within the exemption (87 ITR 556) (Cal). 5. It is seen that in this case, the local

DCIT 13(3)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RIVA RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Riva Resorts Pvt. Ltd., – 13(3)(2), A 306, Radhakrishna Vs. Mumbai Apartments, Dahisar S.O., Mumbai – 400068 (Pan : Aadcr2341B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Ms. Gunjan Kakkad & Mr. Fenil Bhat, A.Rs

801B(10) of the Act were not fully met." 8.8 We have given thoughtful considerations to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and observe that the Ld. Commissioner not only thoroughly considered the parameters of section 80ID of the Act and the relevant facts and the documents submitted by the Assessee but also the order passed

HARMONY ENTERPRISES,THANE vs. ITO WD 2(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodita Nos.8483 & 8484/Mum/2011 (Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09) M/S Harmony Enterprises Income Tax Oficer, Ward 2(1) 6, Guru Ashray, Katrap, Kalyan, Income Tax Officer, Chowk, Midc Road, Rani Mansion, Murbad Road, Vs. Badlapur (East), Kalyan, (West). Distt. Thane, 421503

section. Accordingly, in the backdrop of his aforesaid deliberations the A.O disallowed the assesses claim of deduction under Sec. 80IB(10) amounting to Rs.10,68,465/-. ` 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) observed that the facts and the issue involved in the case of the assessee were identical

ROHA DYECHEM PVT.LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE 43, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue except ITA No

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cen Ci-43 Rohadyechem Pvt Ltd., 6Th Floor, R.No. 659, Aayakar Survoday Mill Compund, Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Vs. M.P. Mills, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 034 Pan No. Aaacr 4974P Appellant Respondent

801B, because section u/s.801B also employs the expression "derived from". Following the above, we decide this issue against the assessee. 7.4 The issue in dispute being identical to what was before the Tribunal (supra), therefore respectfully following the finding of the Tribunal(supra) as reproduced above, the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute

ACIT CEN CI-43 vs. ROHA DYECHEM P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue except ITA No

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cen Ci-43 Rohadyechem Pvt Ltd., 6Th Floor, R.No. 659, Aayakar Survoday Mill Compund, Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Vs. M.P. Mills, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 034 Pan No. Aaacr 4974P Appellant Respondent

801B, because section u/s.801B also employs the expression "derived from". Following the above, we decide this issue against the assessee. 7.4 The issue in dispute being identical to what was before the Tribunal (supra), therefore respectfully following the finding of the Tribunal(supra) as reproduced above, the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute

ROHA DYECHEM PVT.LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE 43, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue except ITA No

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cen Ci-43 Rohadyechem Pvt Ltd., 6Th Floor, R.No. 659, Aayakar Survoday Mill Compund, Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Vs. M.P. Mills, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 034 Pan No. Aaacr 4974P Appellant Respondent

801B, because section u/s.801B also employs the expression "derived from". Following the above, we decide this issue against the assessee. 7.4 The issue in dispute being identical to what was before the Tribunal (supra), therefore respectfully following the finding of the Tribunal(supra) as reproduced above, the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute

ACIT CC-43, MUMBAI vs. ROHA DYECHEM P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue except ITA No

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cen Ci-43 Rohadyechem Pvt Ltd., 6Th Floor, R.No. 659, Aayakar Survoday Mill Compund, Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Vs. M.P. Mills, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 034 Pan No. Aaacr 4974P Appellant Respondent

801B, because section u/s.801B also employs the expression "derived from". Following the above, we decide this issue against the assessee. 7.4 The issue in dispute being identical to what was before the Tribunal (supra), therefore respectfully following the finding of the Tribunal(supra) as reproduced above, the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute

ACIT CC-43, MUMBAI vs. ROHA DYECHEM P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue except ITA No

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cen Ci-43 Rohadyechem Pvt Ltd., 6Th Floor, R.No. 659, Aayakar Survoday Mill Compund, Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Vs. M.P. Mills, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 034 Pan No. Aaacr 4974P Appellant Respondent

801B, because section u/s.801B also employs the expression "derived from". Following the above, we decide this issue against the assessee. 7.4 The issue in dispute being identical to what was before the Tribunal (supra), therefore respectfully following the finding of the Tribunal(supra) as reproduced above, the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute

ROHA DYECHEM P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 43, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue except ITA No

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cen Ci-43 Rohadyechem Pvt Ltd., 6Th Floor, R.No. 659, Aayakar Survoday Mill Compund, Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Vs. M.P. Mills, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 034 Pan No. Aaacr 4974P Appellant Respondent

801B, because section u/s.801B also employs the expression "derived from". Following the above, we decide this issue against the assessee. 7.4 The issue in dispute being identical to what was before the Tribunal (supra), therefore respectfully following the finding of the Tribunal(supra) as reproduced above, the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute

ROHA DYECHEM P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 43, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue except ITA No

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cen Ci-43 Rohadyechem Pvt Ltd., 6Th Floor, R.No. 659, Aayakar Survoday Mill Compund, Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Vs. M.P. Mills, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 034 Pan No. Aaacr 4974P Appellant Respondent

801B, because section u/s.801B also employs the expression "derived from". Following the above, we decide this issue against the assessee. 7.4 The issue in dispute being identical to what was before the Tribunal (supra), therefore respectfully following the finding of the Tribunal(supra) as reproduced above, the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute