SHETH DEVELOPERS P. LTD, MUMBAI v. DCIT CEN CIR 24, MUMBAI

ITA 2999/MUM/2010 | 2005-2006
Pronouncement Date: 30-09-2011 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 299919914 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN AAACS9943H
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 2999/MUM/2010
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 15 day(s)
Appellant SHETH DEVELOPERS P. LTD, MUMBAI
Respondent DCIT CEN CIR 24, MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 30-09-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted J
Tribunal Order Date 30-09-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 27-09-2011
Next Hearing Date 27-09-2011
Assessment Year 2005-2006
Appeal Filed On 15-04-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL J BENCH: MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI R.S. PADVEKAR JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.2999/MUM/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06) M/S. SHETH DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED 11 VORA PALACE NEXT TO DENA BANK M.G. ROAD KANDIVLI (W) MUMBAI- ....... APPELLANT VS DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 24 CENTRAL CIRCLE -24 AAYAKAR BHAVAN M.K. ROAD MUMBAI ..... RESPONDENT ITA NO.3214/MUM/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06) DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 24 CENTRAL CIRCLE -24 AAYAKAR BHAVAN M.K. ROAD MUMBAI ....... APPELLANT VS M/S. SHETH DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED 11 VORA PALACE NEXT TO DENA BANK M.G. ROAD KANDIVLI (W) MUMBAI- ..... RESPONDENT PAN : AAACS 9943 H APPELLANT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI VIJAY MEHTA RESPONDENT REVENUE BY : SHRI D.S. SUNDER DATE OF HEARI NG : 27.09.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 30.09.2011 ITAS 2999 & 3214/M/20108 M/S. SHETH DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED 2 O R D E R PER R.S. PADVEKAR JM: THESE TWO CROSS APPEALS ONE BY THE ASSESSEE AND ANO THER BY THE REVENUE ARE FILED CHALLENGING THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A)-39 MUMBAI FOR THE A.Y. 2005-06 DATED 15.01.2010. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GROUNDS:- THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE WITHOUT PREJUD ICE TO EACH OTHER:- 1.1 THE COMMISSIONER OF I.T. (A) ERRED IN LAW AND FACT IN CONFIRMING THAT THE PROFIT EARNED ON SALE OF BROUGH T FORWARD STOCK OF PROJECT OF WILLOWS TWIN TOWERS DID NOT QUA LIFY FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80-IB(1) ON THE ALLEGED GROUND THAT T WO CONTIGUOUS FLATS PURCHASED BY ONE BUYER IS ONLY ONE RESIDENTIAL UNIT WHICH WERE HAVING BUILT-UP AREA OF MORE THAN 1000 SQ.FT. 1.2 THE COMMISSIONER OF I.T. (A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THESE TWO CONTIGUOUS FLATS PURCHASED BY ONE BUYER ARE SEP ARATE RESIDENTIAL UNIT CONSTRUCTED IN THE PROJECT OF WILL OWS TWIN TOWERS AND BUILT-UP AREA OF EACH UNIT IS LESS THAN 1000 SQ.FT. AND THAT ALL THE CONDITIONS OF SECTION 80-IB(10) WE RE SATISFIED BY THE APPELLANT. 1.3 THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) IN RESPECT OF PROFIT EARNED ON SALE OF BROUGHT FORWARD OF PROJECT OF WILLOWS TWIN TOWERS AMOUNTING TO ` 87 92 754/- BE ALLOWED CONSIDERING THAT THESE TWO CONTIGUOUS FLATS PURCHAS ED BY ONE ITAS 2999 & 3214/M/20108 M/S. SHETH DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED 3 BUYER ARE SEPARATE RESIDENTIAL UNIT CONSTRUCTED IN THE PROJECT WILLOS TWIN TOWERS AND BUILT-UP AREA OF EACH UNIT I S LESS THAN 1000 SQ.FT AND THAT ALL THE CONDITIONS OF SECTION 8 0-IB(10) WERE SATISFIED BY THE APPELLANT. 3. THE REVENUE HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GR OUND:- ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO ALLOW DEDU CTION U/S.80IB(10) OF THE I.T. ACT ON PROPORTIONATE BASIS EVEN IF THE BUILT UP AREA OF SOME FLATS IN THE PROJECT WILLOS TWIN T OWERS EXCEEDS 1000 SQ.FT. 4. THE SHORT CONTROVERSY IS IN RESPECT OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BU SINESS OF REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT. AS NOTED BY THE A.O. THE ASSES SEE HAS SHOWN AN INCOME ON SALE OF FLATS/SHOPS. IN ALL THE ASSESSE E HAS COMPLETED FOUR PROJECTS DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE A .Y. 2005-06 BUT ONLY ONE PROJECT I.E. PLUTO IS CLAIMED AS ELIGIBL E FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THE DEDUCTION OF ` 5 25 17 675/- U/S.80IB(10) OF THE ACT. THE A.O. HAS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80IB FOR THE PROJECTS NAMELY NEPTUNE REDWOOD WILLOW TOWERS & BLISS AS THE SAME WERE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION AND THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION OF ` 7 78 918/- ONLY ON THE PROJECT PINEWOOD & CROWN. THE A.O. RESTRICTED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM U/S.80IB(10) TO ` 7 78 918/- ON THE PROFIT OF SALE OF BROUGHT FORWARD STOCK AS AGAINST THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF ` 1 38 13 135/-. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE A.O. RESTRICTING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION ON THE PROFIT OF SALE OF BROUGHT FORWARD STOCK OF PROJECT. SO FAR AS THE PROFIT ON SALE OF BROUGHT FORWARD STOCK OF PROJECTS NAMELY REDWOOD NEPTUN E WILLOW TOWERS AND BLISS AND TEAK WOOD THE CIT (A) HAD ALLOWE D THE DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) ON THE PRORATE BASIS FOR THE A.Y. 2004 -05 BECAUSE THE ITAS 2999 & 3214/M/20108 M/S. SHETH DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED 4 BUILT-UP AREA OF SOME OF THE FLATS WERE EXCEEDING 1 000 SQ.FT.. THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DED UCTION U/S.80IB(10) ON PRORATE IF SOME OF THE FLATS EXCEEDS BUILT-UP AR EA OF 1000 SQ.FT.. IN THE A.Y. 2005-06 THE LD. CIT (A) FOLLOWED HIS ORDE R FOR THE A.Y. 2004- 05 IN WHICH THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE A.Y. 2003-04 WAS FOLLOWED. SO FAR AS PROJECT TWIN TOWERS IS CONCE RNED THE LD. CIT (A) HAS DIRECTED THAT THE A.O. THAT IF THE BUILT-UP ARE A OF FLATS EXCEEDS 1000 SQ.FT. THEN THE ASSESSEE WILL NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80IB AND THE DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) IS TO BE WO RKED OUT ONLY IN RESPECT OF THE PROFIT ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE PROFIT HA VING THE BUILT-UP AREA OF FLATS HAVING LESS THAN 1000 SQ.FT. NOW THE ASS ESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT (A) AS WELL REVENUE HAS ALSO COME IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A). 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES. THE LD. COUNSEL SUBM ITS THAT ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL IS RECURRING ONE. THE ASSESSEE AS WE LL AS THE REVENUE HAD CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) FOR THE A.Y. 2004-05 BY FILING THE APPEALS BEFORE THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL BEIN G ITA NOS.5673 & 6016/M/2009 AND THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT BOTH T HE APPEALS WERE DISPOSED OFF BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE CONSOLIDATED ORDER DATED 29.07.2011 AND THE FACTS WERE ALSO IDENTICAL AS ARE IN A.Y. 2005-06. HE THEREFORE PLEADED THAT THE A.O. MAY BE DIRECTE D TO ALLOW THE FULL DEDUCTION. WE HAVE ALSO HEARD THE LD. D.R. 6. WE FIND THAT THAT IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE A.Y. 2004- 05 (REFERRED SUPRA) ON THE IDENTICAL SET OF FACTS THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALLOWED GROUNDS TAKEN BY ASSESSEE AND DISMISSED TH E GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE REVENUE. THE OPERATIVE PART OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IS AS UNDER:- ITAS 2999 & 3214/M/20108 M/S. SHETH DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED 5 6 VIDE OUR ORDER OF EVEN DATE AND ON THE SAME SE T OF FACTS IN THE CASE OF EMGEEN HOLDINGS P.LTD. (NOW WINDSOR REA LTY P. LTD.) VS DCIT IN I.T.A NOS.3594 & 3595/MUM/2009 AND I.T. A NOS.3647 & 3648/ MUM/2009 WE HAVE ALLOWED THE APPE AL OF THE ASSESSEE AND REJECTED THE GRIEVANCE RAISED BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER. WHILE DOING SO WE HAVE INTER ALIA OBSER VED AS FOLLOWS: 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS PERUSED TH E MATERIAL ON RECORD AND DULY CONSIDERED FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE AS ALSO THE APPLICABLE LEGAL POSITION. 7. WE FIND THAT THE DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) HAS BEEN DECLINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE GROUND THA T SIZE OF THE RESIDENTIAL UNIT WAS IN EXCESS OF 1 000 SQ.FT WHICH IN TURN PROCEEDS ON THE BASIS THAT TH E FLATS SOLD TO THE FAMILY MEMBERS ADMITTEDLY BY SEPARATE AGREEMENTS SHOULD BE TREATED AS ONE UNIT. WE ARE UNABLE TO APPROVE THIS APPROACH. WE HAVE NOTED THAT THE SIZE OF EACH FLAT AS EVIDENT FROM BUILDING PLAN AS DULY APPROVED BY MUNICIPAL AUTHORITIES WAS LESS THAN 1 000 SQ.FT. WE HAVE ALSO NOTED THAT IT IS NOT EVEN REVENUES CASE THAT EACH OF FLAT ON STANDALONE BASIS WAS NOT A RESIDENTIAL UNIT . EVEN IF FLATS WERE CONSTRUCTED OR PLANNED IN SUCH A WAY THAT TWO FLATS COULD INDEED BE MERGED INTO ONE LARGER UNIT AS LONG EACH FLAT WAS AN INDEPENDENT RESIDENTIAL UNIT DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) COULD NOT BE DECLINED. IT IS IMPORTANT TO BEAR IN MIND THE FACT THAT WHAT SECTION 80IB(10) REFERS TO IS RESIDENTIAL UNI T AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANYTHING TO THE CONTRARY IN THE INCOME TAX ACT THE EXPRESSION RESIDENTIAL UNITS MUST HAVE THE SAME CONNOTATIONS AS ASSIGNED TO IT ITAS 2999 & 3214/M/20108 M/S. SHETH DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED 6 BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES GRANTING APPROVAL TO THE PROJE CT. THE LOCAL AUTHORITY HAS APPROVED THE BUILDING PLAN WITH RESIDENTIAL UNITS OF LESS THAN 1 000 SQ.FT AN D GRANTED COMPLETION CERTIFICATE AS SUCH. THAT LEAVES NO AMBIGUITY ABOUT THE FACTUAL POSITION. WE HAVE FURTHER NOTED THAT THE PROHIBITION AGAINST SALE OF MORE THAN ONE FLAT IN A HOUSING PROJECT TO MEMBERS OF A FAMILY HAS BEEN INSERTED SPECIFICALLY WITH EFFECT FROM 1ST APRIL 2010 AND IN OUR HUMBLE UNDERSTANDING THIS AMENDMENT IN LAW CAN ONLY BE TREATED AS PROSPECTIVE IN EFFECT. WHAT IS THEREFOR E CLEAR IS THAT SO FAR AS PRE-AMENDMENT POSITION IS CONCERNED AS LONG A RESIDENTIAL UNIT HAS LESS THAN SPECIFIED AREA IS AS PER THE DULY APPROVED PLANS A ND IS CAPABLE OF BEING USED FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES O N STANDALONE BASIS DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) CANNOT BE DECLINED IN RESPECT OF THE SAME MERELY BECAUSE THE END USER BY BUYING MORE THAN ONE SUCH UNIT IN THE NAME OF FAMILY MEMBERS HAS MERGED THESE RESIDENTIAL UNITS INTO A LARGER RESIDENTIAL UNIT OF A SIZE WHICH IS IN EXCESS OF SPECIFIED SIZE. THAT PRECISELY IS THE CASE BEFORE US. WHILE ON THE SUBJE CT IT IS USEFUL TO TAKE NOTE OF LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENT BY THE VIRTUE OF WHICH LEGISLATURE PUT CERTAIN RESTRIC TIONS ON SALE OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS TO CERTAIN FAMILY MEMB ERS OF A PERSON WHO HAS BEEN SOLD A RESIDENTIAL UNIT IN THE HOUSING PROJECT. SECTION 80IB(10) NOW PROVIDES AN ADDITIONAL ELIGIBILITY CONDITION THAT IN A CASE WHERE A RESIDENTIAL UNIT IN THE HOUSING PROJECT IS ALLOTTED TO ANY PERSON BEING AN INDIVIDUAL NO OTHE R RESIDENTIAL UNIT IN SUCH HOUSING PROJECT IS ALLOTTE D TO ANY OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON NAMELY (I) THE INDIVID UAL OR THE SPOUSE OR THE MINOR CHILDREN OF SUCH ITAS 2999 & 3214/M/20108 M/S. SHETH DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED 7 INDIVIDUAL (II) THE HUF IN WHICH SUCH INDIVIDUAL I S A KARTA (III) ANY PERSON REPRESENTING SUCH INDIVIDUA L THE SPOUSE OR MINOR CHILDREN OF SUCH INDIVIDUAL OR THE HUF IN WHICH SUCH INDIVIDUAL IS A KARTA. THE EXPLANATION MEMORANDUM EXPLAINED THE LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENT AS FOLLOWS: (314 ITR(ST) 203) FURTHER THE OBJECT OF THE TAX BENEFIT FOR HOUSING PROJECTS IS TO BUILD HOUSING STOCK FOR LOW AND MIDD LE INCOME HOUSEHOLDS. THIS HAS BEEN ENSURED BY LIMITING THE SIZE OF THE RESIDENTIAL UNIT. HOWEVER THIS IS BEING CIRCUMVENTED BY THE DEVELOPER BY ENTERING INTO AGREEMENT TO SELL MULTIPLE ADJACENT UNITS TO A SINGLE BUYERS. ACCORDINGLY IT IS PROPOSED TO INSER T NEW CLAUSES IN THE SAID SUB-SECTION TO PROVIDE THAT THE UNDERTAKING WHICH DEVELOPS AND BUILDS THE HOUSING PROJECT SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED TO ALLOT MORE THAN ONE RESIDENTIAL UNIT IN THE HOUSING PROJECT TO THE SAME PERSON NOT BEING AN INDIVIDUAL AND WHERE THE PERSON IS AN INDIVIDUAL NO OTHER RESIDENTIAL UNIT IN SUCH HOUSING PROJECT IS ALLOTTED TO ANY OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON:- (I) SPOUSE OR MINOR CHILDREN OF SUCH INDIVIDUAL; (II) THE HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY IN WHICH SUCH INDIVIDUAL IS THE KARTA; (III) ANY PERSON REPRESENTING SUCH INDIVIDUAL THE SPOUSE OR MINOR CHILDREN OF SUCH INDIVIDUAL OR THE HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY IN WHICH SUCH INDIVIDUAL IS THE KARTA. THIS AMENDMENT WILL TAKE EFFECT FROM THE 1ST APRIL 2010 AND SHALL ACCORDINGLY APPLY IN RELATION TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-2011 AND SUBSEQUENT YEARS. ITAS 2999 & 3214/M/20108 M/S. SHETH DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED 8 8. IT IS THUS CLEAR THAT THE AFORESAID AMENDMENT HA S BEEN BROUGHT WITH PROSPECTIVE EFFECT I.E. FROM 1ST DAY OF APRIL 2010 AND THERE IS NO INDICATION WHATSOEV ER TO SUGGEST THAT THESE RESTRICTIONS NEED TO BE APPLI ED WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT. THE AMENDMENT SEEKS TO PLUG A LOOPHOLE BUT RESTRICTS THE REMEDY WITH EFFEC T FROM 1ST DAY OF APRIL 2010 I.E. AY 2010-2011. THE LAW IS VERY CLEAR THAT UNLESS PROVIDED IN THE STATU TE THE LAW IS ALWAYS PRESUMED TO BE PROSPECTIVE IN NATURE. IT WILL THEREFORE BE CONTRARY TO THE SCHE ME OF LAW TO PROCEED ON THE BASIS THAT WHEREVER ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL UNITS ARE SOLD TO FAMILY MEMBERS ALL THESE RESIDENTIAL UNITS ARE TO BE CONSIDERED AS ONE UNIT. IF LAW PERMITTED SO THERE WAS NO NEED OF THE INSERTION OF CLAUSE (F) TO SECTION U/S 80IB(10). IT WILL BE UNREASONABLE TO PROCEED ON THE BASIS THAT LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENT WAS INFRUCTUOUS OR UNCALLED FOR PARTICULARLY AS THE AMENDMENT IS NOT EVEN STAT ED TO BE FOR REMOVAL OF DOUBTS. ON THE CONTRARY THI S AMENDMENT SHOWS THAT NO SUCH ELIGIBILITY CONDITIONS COULD BE READ INTO PRE-AMENDMENT LEGAL POSITION. 9. AS REGARDS THE AOS STAND THAT THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAS OFFERED THE DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) IN RESPECT OF THESE UNITS DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY PROCEEDINGS IT IS ONLY ELEMENTARY THAT NEITHER STATEMENT RECORDED U/S.133A HAS AN EVIDENTIARY VALUE NOR A LEGAL CLAIM CAN BE DECLINED ONLY BECAU SE ASSESSEE AT SOME STAGE DECIDED TO GIVE UP THE SAME. IN VIEW OF THESE DISCUSSIONS AND BEARING IN MIND ENTIRETY OF THE CASE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VI EW THAT THE DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE ENTIRELY. TO THIS EXTENT W E ITAS 2999 & 3214/M/20108 M/S. SHETH DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED 9 MODIFY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND ALLOW FURTHER RE LIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. 10. AS WE HAVE HELD THE ADMISSIBILITY OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) IN RESPECT OF ENTIRE PROJECT REVENUE S GRIEVANCE AGAINST PARTIAL RELIEF GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE IS INFRUCTUOUS AND ACADEMIC WE ACCORDINGLY DISMISS THE SAME. 7. WE SEE NO REASONS TO TAKE ANY OTHER VIEW OF THE MATTER THAN THE VIEW SO TAKEN BY US IN THE CASE OF EMGEEN HOLDINGS P.LTD. (NOW WINDSOR REALTY P. LTD.) VS DCIT..(SUPRA). FOLLOWING THE VIEW SO TAKEN US WE A LLOW THE RELIEF CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE REJECT THE GRIEVANCE RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 8. AS REGARDS THE SECOND GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES FAIRLY ACCEPTS AS RIGHTLY NOTED BY THE CIT(A) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION D ATED 29.4.2009 OF A COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF VANDANA PROPERTIES VS ACIT IN ITA NO.1253/M/200 7. IN VIEW OF THIS MATTER AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ESTEEMED VIEWS OF THE COORDINATE BENCH WE UPHOLD THE STAND OF THE CIT(A) AND SEE NO NEED TO INTERFERE IN THE MATTER. 7. WE THEREFORE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE DIRECT THE A.O. TO ALLOW TH E DEDUCTION ON THE PROFIT EARNED ON THE SALE OF BROUGHT FORWARD SALE O F STOCK OF PROJECT WILLOW TOWERS AND ACCORDINGLY GROUNDS TAKEN BY T HE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. ITAS 2999 & 3214/M/20108 M/S. SHETH DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED 10 8. SO FAR AS GROUND OF THE REVENUE IS CONCERNED TH E SAME IS DISMISSED AS WE HAVE ALLOWED GROUNDS TAKEN BY ASSES SE. 9. IN THE RESULT ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED AND REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS DAY OF 3 0TH SEPTEMBER 2011. SD/- SD/- ( R.S. SYAL ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( R.S. PADVEKAR ) JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI DATED: 30TH SEPTEMBER 2011 COPY TO:- 1) THE APPELLANT. 2) THE RESPONDENT. 3) THE CIT (A) -39 MUMBAI. 4) THE CIT- CENTRAL-II MUMBAI. 5) THE D.R. J BENCH MUMBAI. BY ORDER / / TRUE COPY / / ASSTT. REGISTRAR I.T.A.T. MUMBAI *CHAVAN ITAS 2999 & 3214/M/20108 M/S. SHETH DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED 11 SR.N. EPISODE OF AN ORDER DATE INITIALS CONCERNED 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 28.09.2011 SR.PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 28.09.2011 SR.PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 2 8.09.2011 JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 5 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS SR.PS/PS 6 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR.PS/PS 7 FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.PS/PS 8 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER