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

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements

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 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 *

*