Click Here For Best Books On Taxation & Law. Upto 60% Off On Select Titles. Free Shipping & Pay On Delivery!
 

Click Here To Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter

Home › All Judgements › CIT vs. Hermes Developers (Bombay High Court)

CIT vs. Hermes Developers (Bombay High Court)

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: November 27, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 28, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2003-04 & 2004-05
FILE: Click here to download the file in pdf format
CITATION:
S. 80IB(10): Super built-up area cannot be equated with built-up area

The concept of “super built-up” area is used by builders to get higher price and the super built-up area includes common area of stair-case and balcony area. Since super built-up area cannot be equated with built-up area it cannot be stated in the instant case that the area of the flat is more than 1500 sq. ft. There is no doubt that it is the housing project and it does not include any commercial premises. Built-up area is also defined in section 80-IB(14)(a). The words including projections and balconies were inserted with effect from 1st April, 2005 Finance Act of 2004. The question whether the definition of built up area with effect from 1st April, 2005 was prospetive or retrospective in nature has been considered by this Court in Income Tax Appeal No.3315 of 2010 between the Commissioner of Income-Tax-15, Mumbai vs. M/s.Tinnwala Industries which holds that this definition which has been brought on the statute book with effect from 1st April, 2005 would not apply to such projects which are completed prior to 1st April, 2005. There are no distinguishing features brought on record which calls for any interference. The tribunal view is a well reasoned and cannot be said to be perverse.

Related Posts:

  • Anand Developers vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court) The decision in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd in fact, assists the case of the Petitioner rather than the Respondents. In this decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that it is the duty of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all primary relevant facts and once all primary facts…
  • Macrotech Developers Limited vs. PCIT (Bombay High Court) The prosecution against the petitioner has been initiated under section 276-C(2) of the Act because of the delayed payment of the balance amount of the self-assessment tax. Such delayed payment cannot be construed to be a tax arrear within the meaning of section 2(1)(o) of the Act. Therefore such a…
  • Akshar Builders and Developers vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court) Even in a case where the return filed by the assessee is accepted without scrutiny, as per the settled law, the Assessing Officer can issue a notice of reopening of assessment provided he has reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The Assessing Officer cannot proceed…
  • Royal Rich Developers Pvt. Ltd vs. PCIT (Bombay High Court) The Assessing Officer recorded that there was no reason for high premium of Rs.30 per share being paid by the investors. The assessee company had carried out no business during the entire period, except for collection of share application money. The responding investors also could not explain the source of…
  • Experion Developers Pvt Ltd vs. ACIT (Delhi High Court) Whilst it is the settled position in law that the sanctioning authority is required to apply his mind and the grant of approval must not be made in a mechanical manner, however, as noted by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Prem Chand Shaw (Jaiswal) v Assistant…
  • Blue Chip Developers (P) Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi) The Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-2, New Delhi while granting approval for issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Act in Column no. 12 has only mentioned that “YES”, which establish that the approving authority has given approval to the reopening of assessment in a mechanical manner without…

Related Judgements

  1. Arvind Shamji Chheda vs. CIT (Bombay High Court) 

    The correct test to be applied is whether the partnership assets were converted to capital assets of the partners at the time of dissolution. This we find, was provided for in the dissolution deed itself which records in clause (3) … Arvind Shamji Chheda vs. CIT (Bombay High…
  2. CIT vs. LIC Housing Finance Ltd (Bombay High Court) 

    This court held in the matter of Grasim Industries Ltd. (supra) that the condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction under section 263 was that the order sought to be revised must be erroneous insofar as it was prejudicial to … CIT vs. LIC Housing Finance Ltd (Bombay…
  3. CIT vs. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd (Bombay High Court) 

    Section 43B made it mandatory for the department to grant deduction in computing the income under section 28 in the year in which tax, duty, cess, etc. is actually paid. However, Parliament took cognizance of the fact that the accounting … CIT vs. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd (Bombay…
  4. CIT vs. Teletronics Dealing Systems P. Ltd (Bombay High Court) 

    The assessing officer has been faulted for not following section 145(3) of the Act. The tribunal has held that before the assessing officer records satisfaction about the correctness or completeness of the accounts of the assessee, he ought to have … CIT vs. Teletronics Dealing Systems P. Ltd…
  5. North Karnataka Expressway Ltd vs. CIT (Bombay High Court) 

    The High Court had to consider whether a person who is in the business of infrastructure development constructs a road on Build, Operate and Transfer (BOT) basis on land owned by the Government, can it claim depreciation on the toll … North Karnataka Expressway Ltd vs. CIT (Bombay…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*