BAJAJ INTERNATIONAL REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI V. DCIT, 1(2)1, MUMBAI

ITA 5319/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Bajaj International Reality Private Limited appealing against the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) regarding additions made under Section 43CA and disallowances under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary issues revolved around the application of Section 43CA, which pertains to the difference between the sale consideration and the Stamp Duty Valuation (SDV), and the applicability of Section 14A concerning disallowances related to exempt income. The Tribunal examined whether the allotment letters issued constituted an 'agreement' under Section 43CA(3) and whether the provisions of Section 14A were applicable given the absence of exempt income during the relevant assessment years.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 836405 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 28-08-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Kolte Patil Developers Ltd vs DCIT, Parth Dashrath Gandhi vs ITA No. 1990/Mum/2022, Sulochana Sijan Modi Vs ITO, Vireet Investments (P.) Ltd vs. CIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: REVENUE RECOGNITION; REVENUE RECOGNITION; REVENUE RECOGNITION; REVENUE RECOGNITION; LEYAQAT ALI AAFAQUI
• Assessee Lawyers: KIRIT KAMDAR
• Keywords: Set aside; Capital asset; Opportunity of being heard; Proportionate interest; Additional evidence; Retrospective amendment; Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Earning of tax free income; Rule 8D
• Section: 144; 43CA; 14A; 115JB

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA Nos. 5321 and 5319/MUM/2025 Assessment Years: 2016-17 and 2018-19 Bajaj International Reality Private Limited, 106-107, Bajaj Bhawan, 226, Nariman Point, Mumbai. Vs. Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) DCIT – 1(2)1, Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai – 400020. PAN NO. AAECB 3060 C Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Kirit Kamdar Department by : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. AR. Date of Hearing : 16/12/2025 Date of pronouncement : 13/02/2026 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM These two appeals by the assessee are directed against two separate orders, both dated 16.06.2025, passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for Assessment Year (in short A.Y) 2016 -17 and 2018 -19 respectively. As common issue in dispute Printed from counselvise.com is involved in these appeals and therefore sa and disposed of by way of this consolidated order for sake of convenience 2. Firstly, we take up the appeal of the ass year 2016 -17. 2.1 The grounds raised by assessee are reproduced as under: “Addition made under section 4 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (hereinafter referred to as \"Ld. CIT(A)'] erred in upholding the addition of Rs. Officer under the provisions of section 43CA of the Act. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the allotment letters issued as \"an agreement\" as envisaged in section 43CA(3). 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the value of the consideration was fixed between the appellant and the buyers while issuing the allotment letters, which were issued even prior to the date of insertion was agreed on the date of booking itself. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in ignoring that the provisions of section 43CA are not applicable in th since the said section was introduced by the Finance Act, 2013 w.e.f. 01 whereas the booking and allotment to the 1204 and 1004 was already made in the FY 2012 insertion of provision in the Act. 5. Non-applicability of section 43CA when the appellant applies Percentage of Completion Method (POCM) for revenue recognition (a) Without prejudice to Ground No. 1, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in revenue was required to be Method [\"POCM\") as per the Guidance Note and Accounting Standards issued by the ICAI. Bajaj International Reality ITA Nos. 5321 and 5319 n these appeals and therefore same were heard and disposed of by way of this consolidated order for sake of Firstly, we take up the appeal of the assesse The grounds raised by assessee are reproduced as under: Addition made under section 43CA of the Act [Rs.63,37,500/ 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (hereinafter referred to as in upholding the addition of Rs.63,37,500 made by the Assessing er under the provisions of section 43CA of the Act. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the allotment letters issued as \"an agreement\" as envisaged in in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the value of the consideration was fixed between the appellant and the buyers while issuing the allotment letters, which were issued even prior to the date of insertion of section 43CA in the Act, and the value of the consideration was agreed on the date of booking itself. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in ignoring that the provisions of section 43CA are not applicable in th since the said section was introduced by the Finance Act, 2013 w.e.f. 01 whereas the booking and allotment to the buyer with respect to Flat No. 1204 and 1004 was already made in the FY 2012-13, i.e., much prior to the nsertion of provision in the Act. applicability of section 43CA when the appellant applies Percentage of Completion Method (POCM) for revenue recognition (a) Without prejudice to Ground No. 1, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the revenue was required to be recognized under the Percentage of Completion Method [\"POCM\") as per the Guidance Note and Accounting Standards issued Bajaj International Reality Private Limited 2 5321 and 5319/MUM/2025 me were heard together and disposed of by way of this consolidated order for sake of essee for assessment The grounds raised by assessee are reproduced as under: 3CA of the Act [Rs.63,37,500/-] 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (hereinafter referred to as 63,37,500 made by the Assessing 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the allotment letters issued as \"an agreement\" as envisaged in in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the value of the consideration was fixed between the appellant and the buyers while issuing the allotment letters, which were issued even prior to of section 43CA in the Act, and the value of the consideration 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in ignoring that the provisions of section 43CA are not applicable in the instant case, since the said section was introduced by the Finance Act, 2013 w.e.f. 01-04-2014, buyer with respect to Flat No.1304, 1303, 13, i.e., much prior to the applicability of section 43CA when the appellant applies Percentage of (a) Without prejudice to Ground No. 1, on the facts and in the circumstances law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the recognized under the Percentage of Completion Method [\"POCM\") as per the Guidance Note and Accounting Standards issued Printed from counselvise.com (b) Without prejudice to Ground No. 1. on of the case and purpose of section 43CA, the definition of transfer as per section 2(47) of the Act cannot be applied and the date of transfer of property has construed in accordance with the provisions 1882. (c) Without prejudice to G of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition without appreciating the fact that no 'transfer' of asset had taken place in the current assessment year, as the flats were non right of ownership and possession was given to the buyers pursuant to registration of agreement with the st Ld. CIT(A) also erred in considering the building as 'stock in trade' while the same is appearing as 'Work in progress' under Inventories in the financials of the relevant assessment year. (d) Without prejudice to Gr of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that even if section 43CA gets attracted, it is not applicable for the relevant assessment year. 6. Without prejudice to Ground No. 1,2 and 3 abov circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in of Rs.8,18,500/- in respect of Flat No. less than the value fixed for stamp duty purposes and ignoring the amendment to section 43CA by Finance Acts of 2018 and 2020 for the tolerance limit of 10%, being curative in nature had retrospective effect from the day 43CA was introduced in the Act. Disallowance under secti 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the appellant had not earned any exempt income during the year under consideration and hence the question of any disallowance under section 14A does not arise. 9. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT in confirming the application of Rule 8 section 14A. 10.On the facts and in the circumstances of the cas erred in not considering the fact that the investments were made for strategic reasons in group concerns and not for earning exempt dividend income. Bajaj International Reality ITA Nos. 5321 and 5319 (b) Without prejudice to Ground No. 1. on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that for the section 43CA, the definition of transfer as per section 2(47) of the Act cannot be applied and the date of transfer of property has construed in accordance with the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, (c) Without prejudice to Ground No. 1, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition without ing the fact that no 'transfer' of asset had taken place in the current assessment year, as the flats were non-existent at that point in time and no right of ownership and possession was given to the buyers pursuant to registration of agreement with the stamp duty valuation authorities, and the Ld. CIT(A) also erred in considering the building as 'stock in trade' while the same is appearing as 'Work in progress' under Inventories in the financials of the relevant assessment year. (d) Without prejudice to Ground No. 1, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that even if section 43CA gets attracted, it is not applicable for the relevant assessment year. 6. Without prejudice to Ground No. 1,2 and 3 above and on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in in respect of Flat No.1204 whose agreement value was only 8.39% less than the value fixed for stamp duty purposes and ignoring the amendment to section 43CA by Finance Acts of 2018 and 2020 for the tolerance limit of 10%, being curative in nature had retrospective effect from the day 43CA was introduced in the Act. Disallowance under section 14A [Rs.1,19,32,795/-] the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred confirming the addition of Rs.1,19,32,795 made under section 14A of the Act. 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed that the appellant had not earned any exempt income during the year under consideration and hence the question of any disallowance under section 14A 9. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT irming the application of Rule 8D while computing th 10.On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld erred in not considering the fact that the investments were made for strategic sons in group concerns and not for earning exempt dividend income. Bajaj International Reality Private Limited 3 5321 and 5319/MUM/2025 the facts and in the circumstances in law. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that for the section 43CA, the definition of transfer as per section 2(47) of the Act cannot be applied and the date of transfer of property has to be of the Transfer of Property Act, round No. 1, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition without ing the fact that no 'transfer' of asset had taken place in the current existent at that point in time and no right of ownership and possession was given to the buyers pursuant to amp duty valuation authorities, and the Ld. CIT(A) also erred in considering the building as 'stock in trade' while the same is appearing as 'Work in progress' under Inventories in the financials of ound No. 1, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that even if section 43CA gets attracted, it is not applicable for the relevant assessment year. e and on the facts and confirming the addition 1204 whose agreement value was only 8.39% less than the value fixed for stamp duty purposes and ignoring the fact that the amendment to section 43CA by Finance Acts of 2018 and 2020 for the tolerance limit of 10%, being curative in nature had retrospective effect from the day 43CA the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred 1,19,32,795 made under section 14A of the Act. 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed that the appellant had not earned any exempt income during the year under consideration and hence the question of any disallowance under section 14A 9. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred D while computing the disallowance under e and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the fact that the investments were made for strategic sons in group concerns and not for earning exempt dividend income. Printed from counselvise.com 11.On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the adjustment of disallowance of proportionate interest under section 14A read with rule the Work-In-Progress Account without appreciating the fact that the investments were made out of owned funds Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8 [Rs.50,54,077/-] 12.On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the learned Asses the purpose of computing the expenditure relatable to exempt income while computing the book profit under section 115JB of the Act. 13. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not following the ratio of the decision of the Special Bench of the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Vi (SB), thereby violating the principles of judicial discipline The appellant reserves the right to add to, alter or amplify the above grounds of appeal, at any time before or at the time of appeal, to enable t decide the appeal in accordance with law. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee, filed return of income of the year under consideration on 17.10.2016 declaring current year loss at Rs. ( the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short Act) and declaring book profit u/s 115JB at Rs. (-1),59,11,647/ income filed by the assessee was selected for the scrutiny assessment and statutory notices under the complied with and the assessment was completed under Section 143(3). the Assessing Officer (AO) made addition of Rs.63,37,500/ invoking the deeming provisions of Section 43CA, between stated sale con Stamp Duty Valuation (SDV) of Authority on Bajaj International Reality ITA Nos. 5321 and 5319 11.On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the adjustment of disallowance of proportionate interest under ction 14A read with rule 80(2)(ii) of the Act amounting to Rs. Progress Account without appreciating the fact that the investments were made out of owned funds. Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D of the Act under the provisions of section 115JB 12.On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the learned Assessing Officer in applying rule 8D the purpose of computing the expenditure relatable to exempt income while ng the book profit under section 115JB of the Act. 13. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not following the ratio of the decision of the Special Bench of the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Vireet Investments (P.) Ltd [2017] 165 I (SB), thereby violating the principles of judicial discipline. The appellant reserves the right to add to, alter or amplify the above grounds of appeal, at any time before or at the time of appeal, to enable t decide the appeal in accordance with law.” Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee, filed return of income of the year under consideration on 17.10.2016 declaring current year loss at Rs. (-)1,59,99,289/- under normal provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short Act) and declaring book profit u/s 1),59,11,647/-. Subsequently, the return of the income filed by the assessee was selected for the scrutiny assessment and statutory notices under the provisions of the Act were issued and and the assessment was completed under Section the Assessing Officer (AO) made addition of Rs.63,37,500/ invoking the deeming provisions of Section 43CA, stated sale consideration and the value determined by the Stamp Duty Valuation (SDV) of Authority on the date of registration Bajaj International Reality Private Limited 4 5321 and 5319/MUM/2025 11.On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the adjustment of disallowance of proportionate interest under 80(2)(ii) of the Act amounting to Rs.68,78,718/- against Progress Account without appreciating the fact that the investments D of the Act under the provisions of section 115JB 12.On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) sing Officer in applying rule 8D for the purpose of computing the expenditure relatable to exempt income while 13. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not following the ratio of the decision of the Special Bench of the Hon'ble nts (P.) Ltd [2017] 165 ITR 27 (Delhi - Trib.) The appellant reserves the right to add to, alter or amplify the above grounds of appeal, at any time before or at the time of appeal, to enable the Hon'ble Tribunal to Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee, filed return of income of the year under consideration on 17.10.2016 declaring normal provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short Act) and declaring book profit u/s . Subsequently, the return of the income filed by the assessee was selected for the scrutiny assessment provisions of the Act were issued and and the assessment was completed under Section the Assessing Officer (AO) made addition of Rs.63,37,500/- invoking the deeming provisions of Section 43CA, due to difference and the value determined by the the date of registration Printed from counselvise.com in respect of the flats sold by the assessee. under Section 14A invoking rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules,1962 amounting to Rs.50,54,027/ contention that no exempt income was earned. The Ld. CIT(A) affirmed these additions, leading to the present appeal. 4. Before us, the assessee filed a paper book containing pages 1 4.1 The grounds raised Firstly, the addition of Act, regarding the difference between the sale consideration and the Stamp Duty Valuation (SDV). 1,19,32,795/- under normal provisions and in the computation of book profits under Section 115JB. 5. In Ground Nos.1 Assessee is that the AO applied the Stamp Duty Value prevalent the date of registration (FY 2015 prevalent on the date of allotment/booking (FY 2012 5.1 Briefly stated the facts Assessing Officer observed that certain properties i.e. flats assessee and registered consideration reported in the registration document Bajaj International Reality ITA Nos. 5321 and 5319 in respect of the flats sold by the assessee. Further, disallowances invoking rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules,1962 Rs.50,54,027/- was made despite the Assessee’s contention that no exempt income was earned. The Ld. CIT(A) affirmed these additions, leading to the present appeal. he assessee filed a paper book containing pages 1 The grounds raised primarily challenges two distinct additions. , the addition of Rs. 63,37,500/- under Section 43CA Act, regarding the difference between the sale consideration and the Stamp Duty Valuation (SDV). Secondly, the disallowance of under Section 14A read with Rule 8D normal provisions and in the computation of book profits under .1-4 of the appeal the primary grievance of the Assessee is that the AO applied the Stamp Duty Value prevalent date of registration (FY 2015-16) rather than the value date of allotment/booking (FY 2012 Briefly stated the facts qua the issue in dispute are that Assessing Officer observed that during the year under consideration, i.e. flats developed by the assessee were registered for Stamp Duty purposes reported in the registration document Bajaj International Reality Private Limited 5 5321 and 5319/MUM/2025 Further, disallowances invoking rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules,1962 made despite the Assessee’s contention that no exempt income was earned. The Ld. CIT(A) affirmed these additions, leading to the present appeal. he assessee filed a paper book containing pages 1-18. primarily challenges two distinct additions. Section 43CA of the Act, regarding the difference between the sale consideration and the , the disallowance of Rs. Rule 8D, both under normal provisions and in the computation of book profits under the primary grievance of the Assessee is that the AO applied the Stamp Duty Value prevalent on rather than the value date of allotment/booking (FY 2012-13) the issue in dispute are that during the year under consideration, developed by the assessee were sold by the for Stamp Duty purposes, but sale reported in the registration documents was lower than Printed from counselvise.com the value which was determined by the Stamp Duty Value Authorities. The assessee contended that all those flats the year 2012-2013 assessee referred to the provisions of section 43CA (3 submitted that if assessee was entered into agreement for value of the consideration for transfer of the asset and the date of registration of such transfer of asset is not the same Duty value as on the date of such agreement date by the Stamp Duty value said proviso, an assessee is required to make part of the amount of consideration otherwise then by way of cash before the agreement for transfer of the asset. 5.2 The assessee submitted that while sale o 1303 to M/s Jayesh Rege and M/s Sambhavi Rege same were registered on 24/02/2016. In the registration documents sale consideration is reported at Rs. 91,58,435/ authorities valued each of the properties on 1,04,01,500/-. The area of the each flat was the price per square meter was worked out at Rs. 1,98,123/ said flats were however allotted to the couple on October, 2012 and stamp duty value i.e. read said date was Rs.1,45,900 per Sq. meter , which when the area of the each to Rs.76,58,781/-, which is less than the Bajaj International Reality ITA Nos. 5321 and 5319 the value which was determined by the Stamp Duty Value thorities. The assessee contended that all those flats 2013, but were registered in the year 2016. The assessee referred to the provisions of section 43CA (3 submitted that if assessee was entered into agreement for value of the consideration for transfer of the asset and the date of registration of such transfer of asset is not the same the date of such agreement date may be substituted by the Stamp Duty value on the date of registration an assessee is required to make part of the amount of consideration otherwise then by way of cash before the agreement for transfer of the asset. The assessee submitted that while sale of Flat No.1304 and to M/s Jayesh Rege and M/s Sambhavi Rege same were registered on 24/02/2016. In the registration documents sale consideration is reported at Rs. 91,58,435/-. The stamp duty authorities valued each of the properties on date of registration at Rs. . The area of the each flat was 52.50 square meters so the price per square meter was worked out at Rs. 1,98,123/ said flats were however allotted to the couple on October, 2012 and stamp duty value i.e. ready reckoner value per square meter as on said date was Rs.1,45,900 per Sq. meter , which when each flats, the total value for the purposes which is less than the sale consideration Bajaj International Reality Private Limited 6 5321 and 5319/MUM/2025 the value which was determined by the Stamp Duty Value thorities. The assessee contended that all those flats were sold in but were registered in the year 2016. The assessee referred to the provisions of section 43CA (3) and (4) and submitted that if assessee was entered into agreement for fixing the value of the consideration for transfer of the asset and the date of registration of such transfer of asset is not the same, then the Stamp may be substituted f registration. But for invoking an assessee is required to make part of the amount of consideration otherwise then by way of cash before or on the date of f Flat No.1304 and to M/s Jayesh Rege and M/s Sambhavi Rege is concerned, same were registered on 24/02/2016. In the registration documents . The stamp duty date of registration at Rs. 52.50 square meters so the price per square meter was worked out at Rs. 1,98,123/-. The said flats were however allotted to the couple on October, 2012 and y reckoner value per square meter as on said date was Rs.1,45,900 per Sq. meter , which when multiplied by s, the total value for the purposes works out sale consideration value of Printed from counselvise.com Rs.91,58,435/-. Similarly, the assessee made submissions in respect of the other flats sold i.e. (i) Flat no. 1204 to sh Dev Narendra Singh/ Vibha Narerndra Singh Padmavati Shety/ Ms Kanchan Shety (iii) Flat No. 1203 Mishra, however the Assessing Officer rejected the contention of the assessee observed as under: “5.4 The submission made by the AR was duly considered. However, submission of the AR is not acceptable for the reasons as under: The Assessee has earlier period and initial booking amount was also received and therefore, stamp duty valuation on the date of booking of each flats works out to be less then agreement value. In t booking form /ledger accounts as well as bank statements reflecting the receipts from said customers. In this respect, it is stated that in the agreement there is no mention of issue of such allotment letter. In the said of receipt of initial booking amount. Moreover, section 43CA(3) of the Act states that, \"where the dated of agreement fixing the value of consideration for transfer of the asset and the date of registration of such transf section (1) may be taken as the value assessable by any authority of a State Government for the purpose of payment of stamp duty in respect of such transfer on the date of the agreement. The agreem \"as a negotiated and typically legally binding arrangement between parties as to a course of action.\" In this case, it is mentioned in the allotment letter that \"immediately after the execution of regular agree this allotment letter shall be returned and the same shall have no effect and it will be deemed null and void.\" be considered as an intention of the builder to sale and not as an agreement mentioned in section 43CA(3) of the Act. In this regard, it is stated that section 43CA is a deeming fiction of the Act and it is settled law that deeming section has to be interpreted strictly as the deeming fiction is incorporated in the Act for a de purpose. Therefore, the contention of the Assessee in this regard is not acceptable. 5.3 Before us the learned counsel for the assessee relied on various decisions (i) Kolte Patil Developers ltd vs DCIT (2024)( 167 taxmann.com 385 ( Pune Bajaj International Reality ITA Nos. 5321 and 5319 . Similarly, the assessee made submissions in respect flats sold i.e. (i) Flat no. 1204 to sh Dev Narendra Singh/ Vibha Narerndra Singh (ii) Flat no. 1004 to sh Uday Shetty/ Mrs Padmavati Shety/ Ms Kanchan Shety (iii) Flat No. 1203 however the Assessing Officer rejected the contention of the assessee observed as under: 5.4 The submission made by the AR was duly considered. However, submission of the AR is not acceptable for the reasons as under:- The Assessee has contended that the flat was booked by the customers in earlier period and initial booking amount was also received and therefore, stamp duty valuation on the date of booking of each flats works out to be less then agreement value. In this connection, the Assessee furnished allotment letter/ booking form /ledger accounts as well as bank statements reflecting the receipts from said customers. In this respect, it is stated that in the agreement there is no mention of issue of such allotment letter. In the said allotment letter there is mention of receipt of initial booking amount. Moreover, section 43CA(3) of the Act states that, \"where the dated of agreement fixing the value of consideration for transfer of the asset and the date of registration of such transfer of asset are not the same, the value referred to in sub section (1) may be taken as the value assessable by any authority of a State Government for the purpose of payment of stamp duty in respect of such transfer on the date of the agreement. The agreement has been defined in the Oxford dictionary \"as a negotiated and typically legally binding arrangement between parties as to a course of action.\" In this case, it is mentioned in the allotment letter that \"immediately after the execution of regular agreement for sale between us this allotment letter shall be returned and the same shall have no effect and it will be deemed null and void.\" Therefore, such allotment letters can only be considered as an intention of the builder to sale and not as an agreement mentioned in section 43CA(3) of the Act. In this regard, it is stated that section 43CA is a deeming fiction of the Act and it is settled law that deeming section has to be interpreted strictly as the deeming fiction is incorporated in the Act for a de purpose. Therefore, the contention of the Assessee in this regard is not acceptable. Before us the learned counsel for the assessee relied on various (i) Kolte Patil Developers ltd vs DCIT (2024)( 167 taxmann.com 385 ( Pune-Trib) (ii) Parth Dashrath Gandhi in ITA No. Bajaj International Reality Private Limited 7 5321 and 5319/MUM/2025 . Similarly, the assessee made submissions in respect flats sold i.e. (i) Flat no. 1204 to sh Dev Narendra Singh/ (ii) Flat no. 1004 to sh Uday Shetty/ Mrs Padmavati Shety/ Ms Kanchan Shety (iii) Flat No. 1203 to Mr Anil however the Assessing Officer rejected the contention of the 5.4 The submission made by the AR was duly considered. However, submission of contended that the flat was booked by the customers in earlier period and initial booking amount was also received and therefore, stamp duty valuation on the date of booking of each flats works out to be less then ished allotment letter/ booking form /ledger accounts as well as bank statements reflecting the receipts from said customers. In this respect, it is stated that in the agreement there is no allotment letter there is mention Moreover, section 43CA(3) of the Act states that, \"where the dated of agreement fixing the value of consideration for transfer of the asset and the date of er of asset are not the same, the value referred to in sub- section (1) may be taken as the value assessable by any authority of a State Government for the purpose of payment of stamp duty in respect of such transfer on ent has been defined in the Oxford dictionary \"as a negotiated and typically legally binding arrangement between parties as to a course of action.\" In this case, it is mentioned in the allotment letter that ment for sale between us this allotment letter shall be returned and the same shall have no effect Therefore, such allotment letters can only be considered as an intention of the builder to sale and not as an agreement as mentioned in section 43CA(3) of the Act. In this regard, it is stated that section 43CA is a deeming fiction of the Act and it is settled law that deeming section has to be interpreted strictly as the deeming fiction is incorporated in the Act for a definite purpose. Therefore, the contention of the Assessee in this regard is not acceptable.” Before us the learned counsel for the assessee relied on various (i) Kolte Patil Developers ltd vs DCIT (2024)( 167 i) Parth Dashrath Gandhi in ITA No. Printed from counselvise.com 1990/Mum/2022 for AY 2018 (2023) 152 taxmann.com 56 ( Mumbai allotment letter has to be considered 5.4 We have heard rival submissions relevant material on record. formal sale deeds were registered in 2016, the \"agreement fixing the value of consideration\" was effectively entered into in 2012 via Allotment Letters. It is was received via banking channels at the time of booking, satisfying the proviso to Section 43CA(3) and (4); (ii) Section 43CA was introduced w.e.f. 01.04.2014 and should not apply to transactions where rights were crystallised in FY 2012 limit (5%/10%) introduced by Finance Acts 2018/2020 is curative and applies retrospectively. The Assessing officer applied 43CA but held that allotment letters issued was not as per requirement of section 43CA of the Act. 5.5 The learned Assessing officer has rejected the allotment letter entered into by the assessee rejection of the Allotment Letter as an \"agreement\" rests on a narrow interpretation. The AO held t surrendered upon the execution of a formal sale deed, it lacked the finality of a \"legally binding arrangement.\" Bajaj International Reality ITA Nos. 5321 and 5319 1990/Mum/2022 for AY 2018-19 (iii) Sulochana Sijan Modi Vs ITO in (2023) 152 taxmann.com 56 ( Mumbai-Trib) and submitted that allotment letter has to be considered as an agreement. We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused t relevant material on record. The Assessee contends that while the formal sale deeds were registered in 2016, the \"agreement fixing the value of consideration\" was effectively entered into in 2012 via Allotment Letters. It is further submitted that (i) Part consideration was received via banking channels at the time of booking, satisfying the proviso to Section 43CA(3) and (4); (ii) Section 43CA was introduced w.e.f. 01.04.2014 and should not apply to transactions were crystallised in FY 2012-13 ; and (iii) The tolerance limit (5%/10%) introduced by Finance Acts 2018/2020 is curative and applies retrospectively. The Assessing officer applied 43CA but held that allotment letters issued was not as per requirement of ection 43CA of the Act. ssessing officer has rejected the allotment letter entered into by the assessee as an ‘agreement’ . rejection of the Allotment Letter as an \"agreement\" rests on a narrow interpretation. The AO held that since the Allotment Letter was to be surrendered upon the execution of a formal sale deed, it lacked the finality of a \"legally binding arrangement.\" Bajaj International Reality Private Limited 8 5321 and 5319/MUM/2025 19 (iii) Sulochana Sijan Modi Vs ITO in and submitted that agreement. of the parties and perused the The Assessee contends that while the formal sale deeds were registered in 2016, the \"agreement fixing the value of consideration\" was effectively entered into in 2012 via further submitted that (i) Part consideration was received via banking channels at the time of booking, satisfying the proviso to Section 43CA(3) and (4); (ii) Section 43CA was introduced w.e.f. 01.04.2014 and should not apply to transactions 13 ; and (iii) The tolerance limit (5%/10%) introduced by Finance Acts 2018/2020 is curative and applies retrospectively. The Assessing officer applied 43CA but held that allotment letters issued was not as per requirement of ssessing officer has rejected the allotment letter . The Revenue’s rejection of the Allotment Letter as an \"agreement\" rests on a narrow hat since the Allotment Letter was to be surrendered upon the execution of a formal sale deed, it lacked the Printed from counselvise.com 5.6 We find this interpretation to be fundamentally flawed. In real estate transactions, an Allotment Letter, accompanied by the payment of earnest money, creates a specific right in person in favor of the allottee. The subsequent execution of a Sale Deed is m culmination of the obligations initiated by the Allotment Letter. opinion such a condition agreement. 5.7 In the various decisions cited by the assessee, it is evident that allotment letter also has t provisions of the section finding of the Tribunal in Kolte patil Developers ltd (supra) is reproduced as under: “13. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides orders of the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and the paper book filed by both the sides. We find the Assessing Officer in the Instant case made addition of Rs. 25,02,250/- in respect of 8 flats on the ground that the market value of these flats was Rs.2,73,16,150/ for a consideration of Rs. 2,48,13,900/ therefore, the provisions CIT(A)/NFAC, relying on the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Rahul Constructions (supra), deleted the addition in respect of certain flats where the difference is less than respect of remaining flats where the difference is more than 10% between the agreement value and the market price. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that since the assessee had received cheque as per agreement much prior to the date of sale, therefore, such agreement value has to be considered for the purpose of provisions of section 43CA of the Act and no addition is called for. We find some force in the argument of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. Sub 43CA of the Act are as under. \"43CA (1).... Bajaj International Reality ITA Nos. 5321 and 5319 We find this interpretation to be fundamentally flawed. In real estate transactions, an Allotment Letter, accompanied by the payment of earnest money, creates a specific right in person in favor of the allottee. The subsequent execution of a Sale Deed is m culmination of the obligations initiated by the Allotment Letter. opinion such a condition does not take away the essence of the n the various decisions cited by the assessee, it is evident that allotment letter also has to be considered as an agreement, therefore provisions of the section 43CA are duly applicable. finding of the Tribunal in Kolte patil Developers ltd (supra) is reproduced as under: 13. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides orders of the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and the paper book filed by both the sides. We find the Assessing Officer in the Instant case made addition of in respect of 8 flats on the ground that the market value of these flats was Rs.2,73,16,150/- whereas the assessee company has registered the flats for a consideration of Rs. 2,48,13,900/- on the basis of agreement Value and therefore, the provisions of section 43GA of the Act are applicable. We find the CIT(A)/NFAC, relying on the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Rahul Constructions (supra), deleted the addition in respect of certain flats where the difference is less than 10%. He, however, sustained the addition in respect of remaining flats where the difference is more than 10% between the agreement value and the market price. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that since the assessee had received part of the consideration in cheque as per agreement much prior to the date of sale, therefore, such agreement value has to be considered for the purpose of provisions of section 43CA of the Act and no addition is called for. We find some force in the argument of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. Sub-clauses (3) and (4) of section 43CA of the Act are as under. Bajaj International Reality Private Limited 9 5321 and 5319/MUM/2025 We find this interpretation to be fundamentally flawed. In real estate transactions, an Allotment Letter, accompanied by the payment of earnest money, creates a specific right in person in favor of the allottee. The subsequent execution of a Sale Deed is merely the culmination of the obligations initiated by the Allotment Letter. In our does not take away the essence of the n the various decisions cited by the assessee, it is evident that o be considered as an agreement, therefore duly applicable. The relevant finding of the Tribunal in Kolte patil Developers ltd (supra) is 13. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and the paper book filed by both the sides. We find the Assessing Officer in the Instant case made addition of in respect of 8 flats on the ground that the market value of these whereas the assessee company has registered the flats on the basis of agreement Value and of section 43GA of the Act are applicable. We find the CIT(A)/NFAC, relying on the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Rahul Constructions (supra), deleted the addition in respect of certain flats 10%. He, however, sustained the addition in respect of remaining flats where the difference is more than 10% between the agreement value and the market price. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for part of the consideration in cheque as per agreement much prior to the date of sale, therefore, such agreement value has to be considered for the purpose of provisions of section 43CA of the Act and no addition is called for. We find some force in the above clauses (3) and (4) of section Printed from counselvise.com (2)..... (3) Where the date of agreement fixing the value of consideration for transfer of the asset and the date of registration of such transfer of asset are not the same, the value referred to in sub authority of a State Government for the purpose of payment of stamp duty in respect of such transfer on the date of the agreement. (4) The provisions of sub consideration or a part thereof has been received by way of an account payee cheque or an account payee bank draft or by use of electronic clearing system through a bank account [or through such other electronic mode as may be prescribed on or before the date of agreement for transfer of the asset.\" 14. A perusal of the details assessee has received advances by cheque in respect of those three flats as per agreement and the sale deeds were executed subsequently where the market price is more than the agreement value. Sin consideration as advance as per agreement and the sale deeds were made on the basis of the agreement value, although the market price gone by that time, therefore, in view of the provisions of sub the Act, no addition is called for since a part of the consideration has been by cheque on the basis of agreement and the sale deeds were registered on the basis of value mentioned in the agreement. We, therefore, set the CIT(A)/NFAC and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of Rs.14,70,250/-. The first issue raised by the assessee is accordingly allowed. 5.8 The finding of Tribunal in Parth dashrath Ganghi (supra) is reproduced as under: 10. Accordingly, following the above said decision, we hold that the respective allotment letters issued to the assessee should be considered as Since the \"Agreement to sell\" for the purposes of sec 56(2)(x) of the Act. paid the parts of consideration as per the terms and conditions of allotment through banking channels prior to the execution of Sale agreement, we are of the view that the provisos to sec.56(2)(x) shall apply to the facts of the present case. Accordingly the stamp duty valuation as on the date of respective Allotment letters should be considered for the purposes of sec. 56(2)(x) of the Act. Hence the AO was not justified in considering the stamp duty valuation as on the date of execution of agreement to sell. 11. On a perusal of record, we notice that the details of stamp duty value as on the date of respective allotment letters was not brought on record. Since we have held that the stamp duty valuation as on the date of respective allotment letter be considered for the purpose of sec.56(2)(x) of the Act, it is imperative on the part of Bajaj International Reality ITA Nos. 5321 and 5319 (3) Where the date of agreement fixing the value of consideration for transfer of the asset and the date of registration of such transfer of asset are not the same, the value referred to in sub-section (1) may be taken as the value assessable by any authority of a State Government for the purpose of payment of stamp duty in ch transfer on the date of the agreement. (4) The provisions of sub-section (3) shall apply only in a case where the amount consideration or a part thereof has been received by way of an account payee cheque or an account payee bank draft or by use of electronic clearing system through a bank account [or through such other electronic mode as may be prescribed on or before the date of agreement for transfer of the asset.\" 14. A perusal of the details filed by the assessee in the paper book reveals that the assessee has received advances by cheque in respect of those three flats as per agreement and the sale deeds were executed subsequently where the market price is more than the agreement value. Since the assessee has received a part of the consideration as advance as per agreement and the sale deeds were made on the basis of the agreement value, although the market price gone by that time, therefore, in view of the provisions of sub-clauses (3) and (4) of section 43CA of the Act, no addition is called for since a part of the consideration has been by cheque on the basis of agreement and the sale deeds were registered on the basis of value mentioned in the agreement. We, therefore, set the CIT(A)/NFAC and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of . The first issue raised by the assessee is accordingly allowed. The finding of Tribunal in Parth dashrath Ganghi (supra) is nder: 10. Accordingly, following the above said decision, we hold that the respective allotment letters issued to the assessee should be considered as Since the \"Agreement to sell\" for the purposes of sec 56(2)(x) of the Act. paid the parts of consideration as per the terms and conditions of allotment through banking channels prior to the execution of Sale agreement, we are of the view that the provisos to sec.56(2)(x) shall apply to the facts of the present case. Accordingly stamp duty valuation as on the date of respective Allotment letters should be considered for the purposes of sec. 56(2)(x) of the Act. Hence the AO was not justified in considering the stamp duty valuation as on the date of execution of 11. On a perusal of record, we notice that the details of stamp duty value as on the date of respective allotment letters was not brought on record. Since we have held that the stamp duty valuation as on the date of respective allotment letter be considered for the purpose of sec.56(2)(x) of the Act, it is imperative on the part of Bajaj International Reality Private Limited 10 5321 and 5319/MUM/2025 (3) Where the date of agreement fixing the value of consideration for transfer of the asset and the date of registration of such transfer of asset are not the same, the section (1) may be taken as the value assessable by any authority of a State Government for the purpose of payment of stamp duty in section (3) shall apply only in a case where the amount of consideration or a part thereof has been received by way of an account payee cheque or an account payee bank draft or by use of electronic clearing system through a bank account [or through such other electronic mode as may be prescribed on or before the date of agreement for transfer of the asset.\" filed by the assessee in the paper book reveals that the assessee has received advances by cheque in respect of those three flats as per agreement and the sale deeds were executed subsequently where the market price ce the assessee has received a part of the consideration as advance as per agreement and the sale deeds were made on the basis of the agreement value, although the market price gone by that time, nd (4) of section 43CA of the Act, no addition is called for since a part of the consideration has been received by cheque on the basis of agreement and the sale deeds were registered on the basis of value mentioned in the agreement. We, therefore, set aside the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of . The first issue raised by the assessee is accordingly allowed.” The finding of Tribunal in Parth dashrath Ganghi (supra) is 10. Accordingly, following the above said decision, we hold that the respective allotment letters issued to the assessee should be considered as Since the \"Agreement to sell\" for the purposes of sec 56(2)(x) of the Act. Since the assessee has paid the parts of consideration as per the terms and conditions of allotment through banking channels prior to the execution of Sale agreement, we are of the view that the provisos to sec.56(2)(x) shall apply to the facts of the present case. Accordingly, stamp duty valuation as on the date of respective Allotment letters should be considered for the purposes of sec. 56(2)(x) of the Act. Hence the AO was not justified in considering the stamp duty valuation as on the date of execution of 11. On a perusal of record, we notice that the details of stamp duty value as on the date of respective allotment letters was not brought on record. Since we have held that the stamp duty valuation as on the date of respective allotment letters should be considered for the purpose of sec.56(2)(x) of the Act, it is imperative on the part of Printed from counselvise.com the assessee to show that the actual consideration was equal or less than the stamp duty valuation as on the date of issue of respective allotment letters Accordingly, we are restoring this issue to the file of AO for the limited purpose of comparing the actual sale consideration with the stamp duty valuation as on the date of respective allotment letters. In the limited set aside, the AO shall take appropriate decision in accordance with law after affording adequate opportunity of being heard.” 5.9 Similarly in the case of Sulochana Saijan Modi (supra) the Tribunal fillwng the parth Dashrath Gandhi(suora) held that allotment letters issued to an agreement to sell for the purpose of section 56(2)(x). The section 56(2)(x), which is pari materia of said decision applied to the facts of assessee. laid down above decisions, we hold that:\" treated as an 'agreement' for the purposes of Section 43CA(3), provided the consideration or part thereof is received through prescribed banking channels on or before the date of such allotment 5.10 But, the learned counsel for the assessee evidence in support of the Stamp Duty Valuation as on the date of the allotment letter by way of an application for additional evidence. List of those additional evidence INDEX OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE Sl. No. 1 Flat No. 1204: - Statement determining Stamp duty value (SDV) in the year of allotment - SDV determined by Registration and Stamp Department - Bank statement evidencing receipt of booking 2 Flat No. 1004: Bajaj International Reality ITA Nos. 5321 and 5319 the assessee to show that the actual consideration was equal or less than the stamp duty valuation as on the date of issue of respective allotment letters Accordingly, we are restoring this issue to the file of AO for the limited purpose of comparing the actual sale consideration with the stamp duty valuation as on the date of respective allotment letters. In the limited set aside, the AO shall take propriate decision in accordance with law after affording adequate opportunity of Similarly in the case of Sulochana Saijan Modi (supra) the Tribunal fillwng the parth Dashrath Gandhi(suora) held that allotment letters issued to an assessee should be considered as agreement to sell for the purpose of section 56(2)(x). The section pari materia to section 43CA of the Act, hence ratio of said decision applied to the facts of assessee. Following the ratio ove decisions, we hold that:\"an Allotment Letter shall be treated as an 'agreement' for the purposes of Section 43CA(3), provided the consideration or part thereof is received through prescribed banking channels on or before the date of such allotment.\" , the learned counsel for the assessee has evidence in support of the Stamp Duty Valuation as on the date of the allotment letter by way of an application for additional evidence. se additional evidences is reproduced as under: INDEX OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE Particulars Statement determining Stamp duty value (SDV) in the year of allotment SDV determined by Registration and Stamp Department Bank statement evidencing receipt of booking amount Bajaj International Reality Private Limited 11 5321 and 5319/MUM/2025 the assessee to show that the actual consideration was equal or less than the stamp duty valuation as on the date of issue of respective allotment letters. Accordingly, we are restoring this issue to the file of AO for the limited purpose of comparing the actual sale consideration with the stamp duty valuation as on the date of respective allotment letters. In the limited set aside, the AO shall take propriate decision in accordance with law after affording adequate opportunity of Similarly in the case of Sulochana Saijan Modi (supra) the Tribunal fillwng the parth Dashrath Gandhi(suora) held that assessee should be considered as agreement to sell for the purpose of section 56(2)(x). The section to section 43CA of the Act, hence ratio Following the ratio an Allotment Letter shall be treated as an 'agreement' for the purposes of Section 43CA(3), provided the consideration or part thereof is received through prescribed banking has filed additional evidence in support of the Stamp Duty Valuation as on the date of the allotment letter by way of an application for additional evidence. A s under: Page Number Statement determining Stamp duty value (SDV) in the year SDV determined by Registration and Stamp Department amount 1 2 3 Printed from counselvise.com - Statement determining Stamp duty value (SDV) in the year of allotment - SDV determined by Registration and Stamp Department. - Bank statement evidencing receipt of booking amount 3 Flat No. 1203: - Statement determining of allotment - SDV determined by Registration and Stamp Department - Bank statement evidencing receipt of booking amount 4 Flat No. 1303 and 1304: - Statement determining Stamp duty value (SDV) in the year of allotment - SDV determined by Registration and Stamp Department for Flat 1303 - Statement determining Stamp duty value (SDV) in the year of allotment for Flat 1304 - SDV determined by Registration and Stamp Department for Flat 1304 - Bank statement evidencing both the flats 5 Stamp Duty Ready Reckoner Rates for year 2012, 2013, 2015 and 2016 6 Computation of Income 5.11 The Assessee has furnished additional evidence, including bank statements and SDV Ready Reckoner rates for the year 2012, which were not fully examined by the lower authorities. These documents go to the root of the matter. Consequently, we file of the Assessing Officer 1. Verifying the receipt of part consideration via banking channels at the time of allotment. 2. Comparing the actual sale consideration with the SDV prevalent on the date of the Allotment Letter Bajaj International Reality ITA Nos. 5321 and 5319 Statement determining Stamp duty value (SDV) in the year of allotment SDV determined by Registration and Stamp Department. Bank statement evidencing receipt of booking amount Statement determining Stamp duty value (SDV) in the year of allotment SDV determined by Registration and Stamp Department Bank statement evidencing receipt of booking amount Flat No. 1303 and 1304: Statement determining Stamp duty value (SDV) in the year of allotment for Flat 1303 SDV determined by Registration and Stamp Department for Statement determining Stamp duty value (SDV) in the year of allotment for Flat 1304 SDV determined by Registration and Stamp Department for Bank statement evidencing receipt of booking amount for both the flats Stamp Duty Ready Reckoner Rates for year 2012, 2013, 2015 Computation of Income The Assessee has furnished additional evidence, including bank statements and SDV Ready Reckoner rates for the year 2012, which were not fully examined by the lower authorities. These documents go to the root of the matter. Consequently, we remit this issu file of the Assessing Officer for the limited purpose of: Verifying the receipt of part consideration via banking channels at the time of allotment. Comparing the actual sale consideration with the SDV prevalent date of the Allotment Letter. Bajaj International Reality Private Limited 12 5321 and 5319/MUM/2025 Statement determining Stamp duty value (SDV) in the year SDV determined by Registration and Stamp Department. Bank statement evidencing receipt of booking amount 4 5 6 Stamp duty value (SDV) in the year SDV determined by Registration and Stamp Department Bank statement evidencing receipt of booking amount 7 8 9 Statement determining Stamp duty value (SDV) in the year SDV determined by Registration and Stamp Department for Statement determining Stamp duty value (SDV) in the year SDV determined by Registration and Stamp Department for receipt of booking amount for 10 11 12 13 14 Stamp Duty Ready Reckoner Rates for year 2012, 2013, 2015 15-18 19-20 The Assessee has furnished additional evidence, including bank statements and SDV Ready Reckoner rates for the year 2012, which were not fully examined by the lower authorities. These documents go remit this issue to the for the limited purpose of: Verifying the receipt of part consideration via banking channels Comparing the actual sale consideration with the SDV prevalent Printed from counselvise.com 5.12 The ground No.1 allowed for statistical purpose. 6. The ground No.5 was not pressed by the assessee and accordingly same dismissed as infructuous. 7. The ground No.6 is alternative remedy in respect of which we have already restored to the file of the Assessing Officer (A.O), and therefore t restored to the file of the assessing officer for deciding afresh after considering submission and docume 8. Ground Nos. 7 to 11 raised by the assessee assail the disallowance made under Section 14A of the Income ₹1,19,32,795/-. 8.1 Briefly stated, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee was holding investments in quoted and unquoted shares amounting to ₹1,01,08,40,481/- ₹1,01,07,90,481/- as on the closing of the year. The Assessing Officer further observed that similar disallowances had been made in the assessee’s own case from Assessment Year 2011 assessee had not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactorily demonstrated that the investments were made exclusively out of own funds and not from interest borrowings. Invoking Bajaj International Reality ITA Nos. 5321 and 5319 The ground No.1-4 of appeal of the assessee were accordingly allowed for statistical purpose. . The ground No.5 was not pressed by the assessee and accordingly same dismissed as infructuous. . The ground No.6 is alternative remedy in respect of which we have already restored to the file of the Assessing Officer (A.O), and therefore this ground seeking alternative remedy restored to the file of the assessing officer for deciding afresh after considering submission and documentary evidence of the assesse. Ground Nos. 7 to 11 raised by the assessee assail the disallowance made under Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, quantified at Briefly stated, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee was lding investments in quoted and unquoted shares amounting to as on the opening of the year and as on the closing of the year. The Assessing Officer further observed that similar disallowances had been made in the e’s own case from Assessment Year 2011–12 onwards, as the assessee had not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactorily demonstrated that the investments were made exclusively out of own funds and not from interest borrowings. Invoking Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, the Bajaj International Reality Private Limited 13 5321 and 5319/MUM/2025 4 of appeal of the assessee were accordingly . The ground No.5 was not pressed by the assessee and accordingly . The ground No.6 is alternative remedy in respect of ground Nos.1-3 which we have already restored to the file of the Assessing Officer his ground seeking alternative remedy is also restored to the file of the assessing officer for deciding afresh after ntary evidence of the assesse. Ground Nos. 7 to 11 raised by the assessee assail the disallowance tax Act, 1961, quantified at Briefly stated, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee was lding investments in quoted and unquoted shares amounting to as on the opening of the year and as on the closing of the year. The Assessing Officer further observed that similar disallowances had been made in the 12 onwards, as the assessee had not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactorily demonstrated that the investments were made exclusively out of own funds and not from interest-bearing tax Rules, 1962, the Printed from counselvise.com Assessing Officer computed the disallowance and ultimately made a net disallowance of ₹50,54,077/ “6.4 The submission made by the AR was duly considered but found not to be acceptable. The investment in shares has not been made by the assessee during the year rather the same has been made in earlier years. Similarly, the claim of interest expenses made during the year relates to interest bearing fund received by the assessee in earlier years made in this case from A.Y.2011 satisfactorily explain that the investment has not made of own fund and not interest bearing fund. Therefore, disallowance of ex computed as under:- [1] The amount of expenditure directly relating to income which does form part of total income (2) Expenditure by way of interest = A X(B/C) 2.23.19.497 X 101.08.15.481 3,27,98,10,648 A = The amount of expenditure by way of interest other than amount of interest included in clause(i) incurred during the previous year. Particulars Interest B = The average of value of investment, income from which does not or shall not form part of the total income, as appearing in the balance sheet of the assessee, on the first day and last day of the previous year. Particular Opening Balance Closing Balance Average C = the average of total assets as appearing in the balance sheet of the assessee, on the first day and the last day of the previous year. Particulars Opening Balance of total assets Closing Balance of total assets Total Bajaj International Reality ITA Nos. 5321 and 5319 Assessing Officer computed the disallowance and ultimately made a 50,54,077/- observing as under: 6.4 The submission made by the AR was duly considered but found not to be investment in shares has not been made by the assessee during the year rather the same has been made in earlier years. Similarly, the claim of interest expenses made during the year relates to interest bearing fund received by the assessee in earlier years. The disallowance of interest and other expenses has been made in this case from A.Y.2011-12 onwards as the assessee could not satisfactorily explain that the investment has not made of own fund and not interest bearing fund. Therefore, disallowance of expense u/s. 14A as per Rule 8D is - [1] The amount of expenditure directly relating to income which does form part of total income NIL (2) Expenditure by way of interest = A X(B/C) 2.23.19.497 X 101.08.15.481 3,27,98,10,648 68.78.718 A = The amount of expenditure by way of interest other than amount of interest included in clause(i) incurred during the - Amount 2,23,19,497 B = The average of value of investment, income from which does shall not form part of the total income, as appearing in the balance sheet of the assessee, on the first day and last day of Investment 1,01,08,40,481 1,01,07,90,481 1,01,08,15,481 C = the average of total assets as appearing in the balance sheet of the assessee, on the first day and the last day of the Opening Balance of total assets 3,22,58,36,178/ Closing Balance of total assets 3, 6,55,96,21,295/ Bajaj International Reality Private Limited 14 5321 and 5319/MUM/2025 Assessing Officer computed the disallowance and ultimately made a as under: 6.4 The submission made by the AR was duly considered but found not to be investment in shares has not been made by the assessee during the year rather the same has been made in earlier years. Similarly, the claim of interest expenses made during the year relates to interest bearing fund received by the . The disallowance of interest and other expenses has been 12 onwards as the assessee could not satisfactorily explain that the investment has not made of own fund and not interest pense u/s. 14A as per Rule 8D is NIL - 68.78.718 Amount 2,23,19,497 Investment 1,01,08,40,481 1,01,07,90,481 1,01,08,15,481 3,22,58,36,178/- 3,33,37,85,117/- 6,55,96,21,295/- Printed from counselvise.com Average of total assets [3] An amount equal to one value of investment, income from which does not or shall not form part of the total income, as appearing in the balance sheet of the assessee on the first day and last day of the previous year. i.e., Rs.101,08,15,481/ Disallowance u/s. 14A read with Rule 8D [1]+[2]+[3] 9. On further appeal made by the Assessing Officer. 10. We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the relevant material on record. counsel for the assessee is that no exempt income was earned during the year under consideration and, therefore, no disallowanc Section 14A could have been made. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in Industries Limited (ITA No. 51 of 2016), made in the hands of the assessee 10.1. From the assessment order itself, particularly paragraph 6.3, it is evident that the assessee had specifically asserted that no exempt income was received during the relevant previous year. This factual position has not been controver The legal position is no longer res integra. The jurisdictional High Court has unequivocally held that in the absence of any exempt income, no disallowance under Section 14A of the Act is warranted. Bajaj International Reality ITA Nos. 5321 and 5319 3,27,98,10,648/ [3] An amount equal to one-half per cent of the average of the value of investment, income from which does not or shall not form part of the total income, as appearing in the balance sheet of the assessee on the first day and last day of the previous i.e., Rs.101,08,15,481/- Disallowance u/s. 14A read with Rule 8D 50,54,077/ 1,19,32,796/ On further appeal, the learned CIT(A) upheld the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the relevant material on record. The principal contention of the learned counsel for the assessee is that no exempt income was earned during the year under consideration and, therefore, no disallowanc Section 14A could have been made. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in Pr. CIT vs. Ballarpur (ITA No. 51 of 2016), no disallowance made in the hands of the assessee in the year under From the assessment order itself, particularly paragraph 6.3, it is evident that the assessee had specifically asserted that no exempt income was received during the relevant previous year. This factual position has not been controverted by the Revenue. The legal position is no longer res integra. The jurisdictional High Court has unequivocally held that in the absence of any exempt income, no disallowance under Section 14A of the Act is warranted. Bajaj International Reality Private Limited 15 5321 and 5319/MUM/2025 3,27,98,10,648/- 50,54,077/- 1,19,32,796/- the learned CIT(A) upheld the disallowance have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the The principal contention of the learned counsel for the assessee is that no exempt income was earned during the year under consideration and, therefore, no disallowance under Section 14A could have been made. Reliance was placed on the Pr. CIT vs. Ballarpur no disallowance could have in the year under consideration. From the assessment order itself, particularly paragraph 6.3, it is evident that the assessee had specifically asserted that no exempt income was received during the relevant previous year. This ted by the Revenue. The legal position is no longer res integra. The jurisdictional High Court has unequivocally held that in the absence of any exempt income, no disallowance under Section 14A of the Act is warranted. Printed from counselvise.com Respectfully following the binding sustained by the authorities below is unsustainable in law. 10.2 Accordingly, the disallowance made under Section 14A is directed to be deleted. Ground Nos. 7 to 11 are allowed. 11. The next ground in respect of the disallowance of 14A made in respect of computation of the book profit under the provisions of Section 115JB of the Act. As the issue in dispute is decision of the Special Bench in the case of the Commissioner of Income Investment Private Limited 2008-09 and accordingly no disallowance can be made u/s 14A while computing book profit under the provision of section 115JB o Act. The ground No.12 and 13 of the appeal of the assessee are accordingly allowed. 12. Now we take up the appeal of the assessee for the Assessment Year 2018-19. The ground raised by the assessee are reproduced as under: “Addition made under section 43CA of the Act (Rs. 1.59.21.788/ 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the of income tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (hereinafter referred to as \"Ld. CITI(A)’) erred i Assessing Officer under the provisions of section 43CA of the Act. Bajaj International Reality ITA Nos. 5321 and 5319 Respectfully following the binding precedent, the disallowance sustained by the authorities below is unsustainable in law. Accordingly, the disallowance made under Section 14A is directed to be deleted. Ground Nos. 7 to 11 are allowed. The next ground in respect of the disallowance of 14A made in respect of computation of the book profit under the provisions of Section 115JB of the Act. As the issue in dispute is decision of the Special Bench in the case of the ommissioner of Income-tax, Circle 17(1), New Delhi Vs. Investment Private Limited in ITA No.502/Del/2012 for Asstt. Yr.: and accordingly no disallowance can be made u/s 14A while computing book profit under the provision of section 115JB o he ground No.12 and 13 of the appeal of the assessee are Now we take up the appeal of the assessee for the Assessment The ground raised by the assessee are reproduced as section 43CA of the Act (Rs. 1.59.21.788/ 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the f income tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (hereinafter referred to as ) erred in upholding the addition of Rs.1,59,21,788/ Assessing Officer under the provisions of section 43CA of the Act. Bajaj International Reality Private Limited 16 5321 and 5319/MUM/2025 precedent, the disallowance sustained by the authorities below is unsustainable in law. Accordingly, the disallowance made under Section 14A is directed to be deleted. Ground Nos. 7 to 11 are allowed. The next ground in respect of the disallowance of 14A made in respect of computation of the book profit under the provisions of Section 115JB of the Act. As the issue in dispute is covered by the decision of the Special Bench in the case of the Assistant tax, Circle 17(1), New Delhi Vs. Vireet ITA No.502/Del/2012 for Asstt. Yr.: and accordingly no disallowance can be made u/s 14A while computing book profit under the provision of section 115JB of the he ground No.12 and 13 of the appeal of the assessee are Now we take up the appeal of the assessee for the Assessment The ground raised by the assessee are reproduced as section 43CA of the Act (Rs. 1.59.21.788/-] 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner f income tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (hereinafter referred to as 1,59,21,788/- made by the Assessing Officer under the provisions of section 43CA of the Act. Printed from counselvise.com 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the allotment letters issued as \"an agreement\" as envisaged in section 43CA(3). 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the failed to appreciate that the value of the consideration was fixed b appellant and the buyers while issuing the allotment letters, which were issued even prior to the date of Insertion of section 43CA in the Act, and the value of the consideration was agreed on the date of booking itself. 4. On the facts and ignoring that the provisions of section 43CA are not applicable in the instant case for 7 out of 8 flats, since the said section was introduced by the Finance Act, 2013 w.e.f. 01-04-2014, whe these 7 out of & flats were already made prior to FY 2012 the insertion of provision in the Act. 5. Non-applicability of section 43CA Completion Method (POCM) for revenue recognition (a) Without prejudice to grounds above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the L required to be recognized under the per the Guidance Note and Accounting Standards issued by the ICAI. (b) Without prejudice to grounds above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciatin section 43CA. the definition of transfer as per section 2(47) of the Act cannot be applied and the date of transfer of property has to be construed in accordance with the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. (c) Without prejudice to grounds above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition without appreciating the fact that no 'transfer of asset had taken place in the current assessment year, as ownership and possession was given to the buyers pursuant to registration of agreement with the stamp duty valuation authorities. (d) Without prejudice to grounds above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that even if section 43CA gets attracted, it is not applicable for the relevant assessment year. Bajaj International Reality ITA Nos. 5321 and 5319 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the allotment letters issued as \"an agreement\" as envisaged in section 43CA(3). 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the failed to appreciate that the value of the consideration was fixed b appellant and the buyers while issuing the allotment letters, which were issued even prior to the date of Insertion of section 43CA in the Act, and the value of the consideration was agreed on the date of booking itself. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in ignoring that the provisions of section 43CA are not applicable in the instant case for 7 out of 8 flats, since the said section was introduced by the Finance Act, 2013 2014, whereas the booking and allotment to the buyer with respect to these 7 out of & flats were already made prior to FY 2012 the insertion of provision in the Act. applicability of section 43CA when the appellant applies Perc Completion Method (POCM) for revenue recognition (a) Without prejudice to grounds above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the revenue was required to be recognized under the Percentage of Completion Method (\"POCM\") as per the Guidance Note and Accounting Standards issued by the ICAI. (b) Without prejudice to grounds above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that for the purpose section 43CA. the definition of transfer as per section 2(47) of the Act cannot be applied and the date of transfer of property has to be construed in accordance with the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Without prejudice to grounds above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition without appreciating the fact that no 'transfer of asset had taken place in the current assessment year, as the flats were non-existent at that point in time and no right ownership and possession was given to the buyers pursuant to registration of agreement with the stamp duty valuation authorities. (d) Without prejudice to grounds above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that even if section 43CA gets attracted, it is not applicable for the relevant assessment year. Bajaj International Reality Private Limited 17 5321 and 5319/MUM/2025 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the allotment letters issued as \"an agreement\" as 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the value of the consideration was fixed between the appellant and the buyers while issuing the allotment letters, which were issued even prior to the date of Insertion of section 43CA in the Act, and the value of the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in ignoring that the provisions of section 43CA are not applicable in the instant case for 7 out of 8 flats, since the said section was introduced by the Finance Act, 2013 reas the booking and allotment to the buyer with respect to these 7 out of & flats were already made prior to FY 2012-13, Le, much prior to when the appellant applies Percentage of (a) Without prejudice to grounds above, on the facts and in the circumstances of CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the revenue was ompletion Method (\"POCM\") as per the Guidance Note and Accounting Standards issued by the ICAI. (b) Without prejudice to grounds above, on the facts and in the circumstances of g that for the purpose of section 43CA. the definition of transfer as per section 2(47) of the Act cannot be applied and the date of transfer of property has to be construed in accordance Without prejudice to grounds above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition without appreciating the fact that no 'transfer of asset had taken place in the current existent at that point in time and no right of ownership and possession was given to the buyers pursuant to registration of (d) Without prejudice to grounds above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that even if section 43CA gets attracted, it is not applicable for the relevant assessment year. Printed from counselvise.com Disallowance under section 14A [Rs. 1,01,07,904/ 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,01,07,904/ the Act. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the ca failed to appreciate that the appellant had not earned any exempt income consideration and hence the question of an not arise. 8. On the facts and in the cir erred in confirming the application of Rule 8D under section 14A. 9. On the facts and in the circumstances of t erred in not considering the fact that the investmen reasons in group concerns and not for earning exempt dividend income Disallowance u/s 144 r.w.r. 80 of the Act under the provisions of section 115/8 [Rs. 1.01.07,904/ 10. On the facts and in the circumstances of t erred in upholding the action of the learned Asses for the purpose of computing the expenditure relatable to exempt income while computing the book profit under section 115JB 11. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the disallowance computed u 8D does not represent actual expenditure incurred for earning exempt income and the same therefore, n under section 115JB of the Act. 12. On the facts and in the circumstances of t has failed to understand that section 115JB would cover only direct expenses which are actually been debited to Profit and Loss account. The appellant has not debited any actual expenditure relating to the earning of exempt income, therefore, the provisions of section 14A cannot be brought into the computation of book profit under section 1 13. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not following the ratio of the decision of the Special Bench of the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Vireet (5B), thereby violating the Bajaj International Reality ITA Nos. 5321 and 5319 r section 14A [Rs. 1,01,07,904/-] 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,01,07,904/-made under section 14A of 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the L. CIT(A) appreciate that the appellant had not earned any exempt income consideration and hence the question of any disallowance under section 14A 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in rming the application of Rule 8D while computing the disallowance 9. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT( considering the fact that the investments were made for strategic reasons in group concerns and not for earning exempt dividend income Disallowance u/s 144 r.w.r. 80 of the Act under the provisions of section 115/8 [Rs. 1.01.07,904/ 10. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and erred in upholding the action of the learned Assessing Officer in applying rule 8D for the purpose of computing the expenditure relatable to exempt income while e book profit under section 115JB of the Act. facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the disallowance computed u represent actual expenditure incurred for earning exempt income and the same therefore, need not be added back while computing book profit under section 115JB of the Act. 12. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT( has failed to understand that section 115JB would cover only direct expenses tually been debited to Profit and Loss account. The appellant has not debited any actual expenditure relating to the earning of exempt income, therefore, the provisions of section 14A cannot be brought into the computation of book profit under section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 13. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not following the ratio of the decision of the Special Bench of the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Vireet Investments (P.) Ltd (2017) 165 (TR 27 (Delhi (5B), thereby violating the principles of judicial discipline. Bajaj International Reality Private Limited 18 5321 and 5319/MUM/2025 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) made under section 14A of se and in law, the L. CIT(A) appreciate that the appellant had not earned any exempt income y disallowance under section 14A does cumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) while computing the disallowance he case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) ts were made for strategic reasons in group concerns and not for earning exempt dividend income Disallowance u/s 144 r.w.r. 80 of the Act under the provisions of section 115/8 [Rs. 1.01.07,904/-] he case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) sing Officer in applying rule 8D for the purpose of computing the expenditure relatable to exempt income while facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the disallowance computed under section 14A r.w.r represent actual expenditure incurred for earning exempt income eed not be added back while computing book profit he case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to understand that section 115JB would cover only direct expenses tually been debited to Profit and Loss account. The appellant has not debited any actual expenditure relating to the earning of exempt income, therefore, the provisions of section 14A cannot be brought into the computation of 13. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not following the ratio of the decision of the Special Bench of the Hon'ble Investments (P.) Ltd (2017) 165 (TR 27 (Delhi- Trib) Printed from counselvise.com Treatment of deferred tax [Rs. 98,966/ 14. On the facts and in the circumstances of t erred in not adjudicating the ground raised by the appellant with respect to the addition made on account of deferred tax while computing the income u/s 115JB the Act. The appellant reserves the right to add to, alter or amplify the above grounds of any time before or at the time of appeal, to enable the Hon'ble Tribunal to decide the appeal in accordance with law.” 12.1 Ground No.1-4 of the appeal are i raised in the year Assessment year 2016 consideration also the assessee has filed additional evidence as we have accepted in Assessment Year 2016 back to the file of the assessing officer, in the Assessment Year 2016 under consideration is also restored to the file of the officer for adjudication after considering the additional evidence and other documents which may be filed by the 12.2. Ground No.5 of the appeal has not been pressed in the year under consideration also and therefore same is dismissed as infructuous. 13. In ground Nos.6 disallowance u/s 14A. Since exempted year has been assessment year 2016 accordingly allowed. Bajaj International Reality ITA Nos. 5321 and 5319 Treatment of deferred tax [Rs. 98,966/-] 14. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT( erred in not adjudicating the ground raised by the appellant with respect to the addition made on account of deferred tax while computing the income u/s 115JB The appellant reserves the right to add to, alter or amplify the above grounds of any time before or at the time of appeal, to enable the Hon'ble Tribunal to decide the appeal in accordance with law.” 4 of the appeal are identically worded as ground raised in the year Assessment year 2016-17. In the year und consideration also the assessee has filed additional evidence as we have accepted in Assessment Year 2016-17 and restored the matter back to the file of the assessing officer, therefore, following in the Assessment Year 2016-17, the issue in dispute in the year under consideration is also restored to the file of the officer for adjudication after considering the additional evidence and other documents which may be filed by the assessee. Ground No.5 of the appeal has not been pressed in the year under consideration also and therefore same is dismissed as .6-9, the assessee has raised the issue of the disallowance u/s 14A. Since in the year under consideration also no exempted year has been earned, therefore, following assessment year 2016-17, ground Nos.6-9 of the appeal are Bajaj International Reality Private Limited 19 5321 and 5319/MUM/2025 he case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the ground raised by the appellant with respect to the addition made on account of deferred tax while computing the income u/s 115JB of The appellant reserves the right to add to, alter or amplify the above grounds of appeal, at any time before or at the time of appeal, to enable the Hon'ble Tribunal to decide the dentically worded as grounds n the year under consideration also the assessee has filed additional evidence as we 17 and restored the matter following or finding 17, the issue in dispute in the year under consideration is also restored to the file of the ld Assessing officer for adjudication after considering the additional evidence and assessee. Ground No.5 of the appeal has not been pressed in the year under consideration also and therefore same is dismissed as the assessee has raised the issue of the er consideration also no following our finding in the 9 of the appeal are Printed from counselvise.com 14. Ground Nos.10 disallowance u/s 14A provisions of Section 115JB. As the identical issue has been allowed in favour of the assesse in the assessment year 2016 following or finding in the assessment year 2016 Nos.10-13 of the assessee are accordingly allowed. 15. Regarding ground No.14 for claim of the deferred taxes the learned counsel for the assessee before us submitted that matter may be restored to the file of A of the assessee. As both parties agreed that verification at the level of the assessing officer and therefore appropriate to restore the issue back for verification and decide in 16. In the result both the appeals of the parties are partly allowed for the statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on Sd/- (KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 13/02/2026 M. Ranganath Vittal , Sr. P.S. Bajaj International Reality ITA Nos. 5321 and 5319 Nos.10-13 of the appeal relates to adjustment disallowance u/s 14A to the book profit computed under the provisions of Section 115JB. As the identical issue has been allowed in favour of the assesse in the assessment year 2016 following or finding in the assessment year 2016 e assessee are accordingly allowed. Regarding ground No.14 for claim of the deferred taxes the learned counsel for the assessee before us submitted that matter may file of Assessing officer for verification of the claim ee. As both parties agreed that this is the matter verification at the level of the assessing officer and therefore appropriate to restore the issue back to the file of the assessing officer for verification and decide in accordance with law. In the result both the appeals of the parties are partly allowed for the statistical purposes. ounced in the open Court on 13/02/2026. Sd/ KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Bajaj International Reality Private Limited 20 5321 and 5319/MUM/2025 13 of the appeal relates to adjustment for to the book profit computed under the provisions of Section 115JB. As the identical issue has been allowed in favour of the assesse in the assessment year 2016-17 and therefore following or finding in the assessment year 2016-17 the ground Regarding ground No.14 for claim of the deferred taxes the learned counsel for the assessee before us submitted that matter may ssessing officer for verification of the claim this is the matter of only verification at the level of the assessing officer and therefore, we feel it to the file of the assessing officer In the result both the appeals of the parties are partly allowed for /02/2026. Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Printed from counselvise.com Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// Bajaj International Reality ITA Nos. 5321 and 5319 Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Bajaj International Reality Private Limited 21 5321 and 5319/MUM/2025 BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "