The Tax Publishers2021 TaxPub(DT) 0333 (Mum-Trib)

IN THE ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH

C.N. PRASAD, J.M. & S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, A.M.

Neelkanth Palm Realty v. ACIT

I.T.A. No. 2703/Mum/2014

8 December, 2020

Assessee Partly Allowed.

Appellant by: Nitesh Joshi & Gyneshwar Katarm, ARs

Respondent by: Kavita P. Kaushik, DR

ORDER

S. Rifaur Rahman, A.M.

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals) - 26 in short referred as learned Commissioner (Appeals)) , Mumbai dated 25-2-2014 for assessment year (in short AY) 2009-10.

2. The brief facts of the case are, assessee is engaged in the business of development of real estate. During this assessment year, assessee has taken up construction projects by the names Classique Project and Royal Project . The Assessee maintained Separate Books/Financial Records for 2 Projects and as far as Project Classique is concerned, the assessee has already completed the construction of the project and only few flats were pending for sale, these were sold during this assessment year. The project Classique profits were eligible to claim deduction under section 80 IB (10) of the Act. The Project Royal is a normal project and Assessee was not claiming any benefit under Section 80 IB. Accordingly, Assessee submitted separate Profit and Loss Account for each project and declared Gross Profit of Rs. 29,48,020 in Project Classique and Rs. 69,14,987 in the case of Royal Project and it also declared receipts of Rs. 4,99,09,782 towards sale of TDR, the Assessee claimed the profit declared in Classique Project as deduction under Section 80 IB(10).

SUBSCRIBE TaxPublishers.inSUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT