Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

ITA No. 1320/Mum/2011 - AY 2001-02, ITA No. 1321/Mum/2011 - AY 2002-03, ITA No. 1322/Mum/2011 - AY 2003-04, ITA No. 1323/Mum/2011 - AY 2004-05, ITA No. 1324/Mum/2011 - AY 2005-06 and ITA No. 1325/Mum/2011 - AY 2006-07 and ITA No. 1274/Mum/2011 - AY 2001-02, ITA No. 1275/Mum/2011 - AY 2002-03, ITA No. 1276/Mum/2011 - AY 2003-04, ITA No. 1277/Mum/2011 - AY 2004-05, ITA No. 1278/Mum/2011 - AY 2005-06, ITA No. 1279/Mum/2011 - AY 2006-07 and ITA No. 6646/Mum/2012 - AY 2008-09

Attorney(S)

Advocates who appeared in this case :
Assessee by: Shri S.L. Jain
Revenue By: Shri Abi Rama Kartikeyan

Judges

G. Manjunatha, A.M.
Ravish Sood, J.M.

Acts

provisions of section 80IB(10) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
provisions of section 45(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961
u/s 80IB(10) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
u/s 45(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
section 45(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961.
section 45(2) of the I.T. Act, 1962.
u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961,
provisions of section 45(2)

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Tribunal Summary — Powerline Products / Venus Tiles & Marbles (Maple Height) — ITA group of appeals

Factual and Procedural Background

This consolidated order arises from cross-appeals by the assessee and the revenue against separate but identical orders of the CIT(A)-23, Mumbai (dated 29-10-2010 and 31-08-2012). The core facts (as recited in the opinion) are:

The assessee (proprietor of M/s Powerline Products & M/s Venus Tiles & Marbles) held leasehold land acquired by assignment in 1975 and ran a factory on it. Part of the land was intended for a housing project (Maple Height).
An application for plan sanction / IOD was filed on 02-02-1994. Subsequently the MCGM issued IOD on 09-01-1997 and a commencement certificate (CC) on 06-05-1998. Development agreements with M/s Bhoomi Developers were executed in 1998 for A-Wing (various dates in 1998 are referenced).
The assessee received advances from prospective flat buyers from AY 2001-02 onwards but did not recognise business income in those years, claiming project-completion method and exemption under section 80IB(10) for housing projects.
Assessment for AY 2005-06 was completed u/s 143(3) on 31-12-2007. On reassessment (u/s 147) for AYs 2001-02 to 2004-05 and in related years the AO treated the filing date (02-02-1994) as date of conversion of land into stock-in-trade under section 45(2), computed a large long-term capital gain (LTCG) by taking ready reckoner value of flats as on 02-02-1994 less an assumed construction cost (Rs.300/sq.ft.), and apportioned taxability on the basis of advances received.
The assessee appealed to the CIT(A) contesting (inter alia) the date of conversion, the valuation method, the year of taxability of LTCG under s.45(2), and claiming s.80IB(10) relief. The CIT(A) accepted some of the assessee's contentions (notably taxability of LTCG in AY 2008-09 when the project was completed and revenue recognised) but set aside the quantum determination to the AO to determine construction cost based on developer's actual cost.
Both sides appealed to the Tribunal: the revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s view on year of taxability and on computation; the assessee challenged the finding that conversion occurred on 02-02-1994 and the method of valuation adopted by the AO.

Legal Issues Presented

What is the date of conversion of the land into stock-in-trade for the purposes of section 45(2) — the date of filing application for IOD (02-02-1994) or a later date when statutory approvals / commencement actually occurred?
How should the fair market value of land on the date of conversion be computed — by using ready reckoner value of completed flats less an estimate of construction cost (AO's approach) or by using the actual construction cost incurred by the developer (as directed by CIT(A))?
In which assessment year is the long-term capital gain under section 45(2) chargeable — immediately on conversion or in the year when the flats (stock-in-trade) are ultimately sold / revenue recognised (project completion year)?
Whether the assessee is eligible for deduction under section 80IB(10) (i.e., whether construction commenced on or after 01-10-1998 and was completed on or before 31-03-2008)?
Whether interest earned on bank fixed deposits (FDRs) should be treated as business income (part of project costs) or as income from other sources?

Arguments of the Parties

Revenue (Ld. Departmental Representative)

Contended that the CIT(A) erred in holding that capital gain tax will arise in AY 2008-09 under s.45(2) because the assessee received advances and handed over possession of flats before AY 2008-09; therefore LTCG should be taxed proportionately as advances were received and sales occurred earlier.
Argued that an agreement for sale being registered (and possession handed over) demonstrates sale and taxability earlier than AY 2008-09; the AO was right to compute LTCG proportionately on advances received.
Maintained that the AO was correct to use Rs.300/sq.ft. as the construction cost deduction (the 1994 rate) when deriving land value from ready reckoner rate of Rs.1,560/sq.ft.

Assessee (Ld. Authorised Representative)

Argued that conversion into stock-in-trade did not occur on 02-02-1994 (date of filing application) because plan sanction IOD and commencement certificate were received later (IOD on 09-01-1997; CC on 06-05-1998); consequently conversion was in 1998/1999 when approvals and change of user occurred.
Contended the date of conversion must reflect when the asset became capable of being used as stock-in-trade, not merely the date of intention or of filing an application; relied on decisions such as Late Puran Ratilal Mehta Estate of Late N.J. Patel vs. DCIT and Vidhyadhar Containers Ltd vs. DCIT.
Challenged the AO's reverse-working of the land value (ready reckoner minus an arbitrary Rs.300/sq.ft. construction cost), contending that either ready reckoner value of land or actual construction cost incurred by developer should be used. The developer (Bhoomi) provided particulars showing cost of construction at Rs.591/sq.ft.
Asserted entitlement to deduction under s.80IB(10) because physical construction (per architect's certificate) commenced on 05-10-1998 and the project was completed before 31-03-2008; non-issuance of occupation certificate (OC) was due to legal disputes and should not defeat completion evidence (architect certificates, possession letters, fire and lift certificates).
Treated interest on FDRs as business receipts, arguing a nexus between parked surplus business funds and project activity (the CIT(A) had accepted this view relying on CIT vs Lok Housing).

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Late Puran Ratilal Mehta Estate of Late N.J. Patel vs DCIT (2007) 17 SOT 543	Relied on by the assessee for the proposition that date of conversion should not be merely the date of application/intent but when asset is capable of use as stock-in-trade.	The Tribunal observed that the facts of that decision were different from the present case and therefore did not accept the assessee's reliance; it did not apply that decision's result here.
Vidhyadhar Containers Ltd vs DCIT 30 CCH 547	Relied on by the assessee in support of its contention on date of conversion.	The Tribunal noted the reliance but concluded the present facts are different and did not follow that case to alter the date of conversion found here.
CIT vs Hindustan Samuh Awas Ltd — 62 Taxman.com.175 (Bom)	Authority for the proposition that completion of a housing project can be demonstrated by physical acts and certificates (architect) and OC is not the sole determinative factor for completion under s.80IB(10).	The Tribunal relied on this decision to accept the assessee's evidence (architect's certificate, possession letters, other departmental certificates) and held the project was completed within the time limit for s.80IB(10).
ITO vs Saket Corporation — 234 Taxman.com 435 (Guj)	Held that obtaining OC is not a mandatory requirement to prove completion of building for s.80IB(10) purposes when building is otherwise complete.	The Tribunal cited this case in supporting the view that absence of OC did not preclude finding of completion for the assessee's project.
Runwal Motel Housing Pvt Ltd — ITA No.1015/PN/2011 (ITAT Pune Bench)	Considered non-issuance of OC and held that when flats were handed over, deduction cannot be denied merely due to absence of completion certificate.	The Tribunal referenced this ITAT decision to support the conclusion that the assessee's project completion evidence sufficed despite lack of OC.
CIT vs Lok Housing — 308 ITR 356 (Bom)	Applied by the CIT(A) to treat interest on short-term FDs as business receipt where funds were borrowed for business and surplus parked to recoup interest payable on loans.	The Tribunal distinguished the present facts from Lok Housing because in the present case the AO found funds in FDRs arose from the assessee's own business profits and no borrowing; consequently the Tribunal reversed CIT(A)'s reliance and held interest should be taxed under Income from other sources.
Totgar Co-operative Sales Society Ltd vs ITO — (2010) 322 ITR 283 (SC)	Principle regarding the precise meaning of "profits and gains of business or profession" and that Parliament has included specific business profit in the definition of "income".	The Tribunal relied on this Supreme Court ratio to emphasise that interest earned on short-term FDs could not be treated as business income where it lacked a direct nexus with the assessee's main business activity (construction), and thus upheld AO's assessment under "Income from other sources".

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Tribunal's reasoning follows distinct strands corresponding to each major issue. The analysis reproduced below adheres to the text of the opinion.

Date of Conversion (Section 45(2))

- The Tribunal framed the question as whether conversion of land into stock-in-trade occurred on the date of filing application for plan sanction / IOD (02-02-1994) or later when statutory permissions (IOD on 09-01-1997; CC on 06-05-1998) were obtained or when other development steps were taken.

- The Tribunal emphasised that the date of conversion may be determined either by an entry in the books of account or by the intention of the assessee to commercially exploit the asset as stock-in-trade. In this case, there was no bookkeeping entry to mark conversion, but the assessee filed an application on 02-02-1994 demonstrating its intention to develop the land.

- The Tribunal held intention to commercially exploit (evidenced by application for IOD) is the relevant factor and that subsequent events (issue of IOD and CC) were follow-up actions. It found that the facts differ from the precedent relied upon by the assessee and therefore upheld the lower authorities' conclusion that conversion occurred on 02-02-1994.

Computation of Fair Market Value on Date of Conversion

- The AO used ready reckoner rate of constructed flats as on 02-02-1994 (Rs.1,560/sq.ft.) and deducted an estimated cost of construction (Rs.300/sq.ft.) to derive land value. This produced a market value on the date of conversion used to compute LTCG.

- The CIT(A) found the AO's deduction of Rs.300/sq.ft. was an unsupported estimate made because the AO had not received developer details; directed the AO to determine cost of construction based on actual cost incurred by the developer.

- The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A): where the developer supplied details (letter dated 20-04-2011 showing Rs.591/sq.ft.), the AO should adopt the actual cost of construction incurred by the developer rather than an arbitrary estimate. Accordingly, the Tribunal directed the AO to adopt the developer's construction cost for arriving at land value.

Year of Taxability of Long-Term Capital Gain (s.45(2))

- The AO reopened assessments and apportioned LTCG to AYs 2001-02 to 2006-07 on the basis of advances received, on the view that the assessee had deferred revenue recognition and that capital gain as per s.45(2) should be taxed proportionately on advances.

- The assessee maintained it followed the project-completion method and recognised business revenue (and offered taxable income) only in AY 2008-09 when the project was completed, and therefore s.45(2) capital gain should be chargeable when the flats were actually sold (AY 2008-09).

- The Tribunal accepted the assessee's factual showing that no business income had been declared in AYs 2001-02 to 2006-07, that advances were shown as liabilities pending registration of sale deeds, and that the project was completed in AY 2008-09 (undisputed by the AO). The Tribunal reasoned that, under s.45(2), LTCG on conversion into stock-in-trade is taxable when the stock-in-trade is sold; because completion and revenue recognition occurred in AY 2008-09, LTCG was chargeable in AY 2008-09. The Tribunal therefore upheld the CIT(A) on this point and rejected the revenue's contention to tax earlier years.

Deduction under Section 80IB(10)

- The AO denied s.80IB(10) deduction on the grounds that construction commenced before 01-10-1998 (CC dated 06-05-1998 and site works done earlier) and that project completion by 31-03-2008 was not demonstrated because OC was not obtained.

- The assessee produced an architect's certificate asserting actual construction commencement on 05-10-1998, completion certificates (architect, civil engineer), possession letters, and other departmental clearances (fire, lift). The assessee explained early site work before CC was compliance with MCGM prerequisites and did not amount to commencement of building construction.

- The CIT(A) and the Tribunal accepted the assessee's evidence, relying also on authorities (CIT vs Hindustan Samuh Awas, ITO vs Saket Corporation, Runwal Motel decision) that OC is not the sole determinant of completion. The Tribunal found construction actually commenced on 05-10-1998 and the project was completed before 31-03-2008. Therefore s.80IB(10) conditions were satisfied and the AO's denial was reversed.

Characterisation of Interest on FDRs

- The assessee treated interest earned on bank FDRs as business receipts (reduced construction cost) because surplus business funds were parked to earn interest. The CIT(A) accepted this view relying on CIT vs Lok Housing (where borrowed funds were parked temporarily in FDs).

- The AO treated the interest as income from other sources, reasoning that the assessee's main business is construction and development (not lending) and that funds in FDRs were derived from the assessee's own profits (no borrowing), so the interest lacked requisite nexus with main business activity.

- The Tribunal sided with the AO: applying jurisprudence (Totgar Co-op Sales Society Ltd v. ITO) on the meaning of "profits and gains of business", it found no direct nexus between interest on FDRs and the assessee's main business of construction; the facts differed from Lok Housing (no borrowing). Consequently the Tribunal held interest was correctly assessable under Income from other sources and reversed the CIT(A) on this issue.

Holding and Implications

Core Rulings:

Conversion Date: The Tribunal upheld the finding that conversion of the land into stock-in-trade occurred on 02-02-1994 (date of filing application for IOD), because the assessee's intention to commercially exploit the property on that date sufficed for conversion in the absence of a bookkeeping entry marking conversion.
Valuation/Computation: The Tribunal directed the AO to determine the fair market value of land on the date of conversion by adopting the actual cost of construction incurred by the developer (as provided), rather than the AO's arbitrary estimate of Rs.300/sq.ft.; the CIT(A)'s direction on this point was upheld.
Year of Taxability of LTCG (s.45(2)): The Tribunal held that LTCG arising on conversion into stock-in-trade is chargeable in the year in which the stock-in-trade is sold / revenue is recognised. Because the assessee completed the project and recognised revenue in AY 2008-09, the LTCG is taxable in AY 2008-09; the CIT(A)'s conclusion on this point was upheld and the revenue's attempt to tax earlier years was rejected.
Section 80IB(10) Deduction: The Tribunal held the assessee satisfied the commencement (on or after 01-10-1998) and completion (on or before 31-03-2008) requirements for s.80IB(10) based on architect and other certificates; the AO's denial was reversed.
Interest on FDRs: The Tribunal held interest earned on bank FDRs to be income from other sources (not business receipts) because there was no direct nexus with the assessee's main business activity (construction) and the funds were from the assessee's own profits (no borrowing). The CIT(A)'s contrary view was reversed.

Case Disposition (as stated in the order):

Appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos. 1320 to 1325/Mum/2011 are dismissed.
Appeals filed by the revenue in ITA Nos. 1274 to 1277/Mum/2011 and ITA Nos. 1278 & 1279/Mum/2011 are dismissed (revenue's grounds rejected).
The appeal filed by the revenue in ITA 6646/Mum/2012 is partly allowed (this corresponds to the departmental challenge on the interest classification which the Tribunal restored to AO's position).

Direct effect on the parties: the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s finding that LTCG under s.45(2) is taxable in AY 2008-09 (when the project was completed and revenue recognised), compelled the AO to adopt developer's actual construction cost for land valuation, allowed s.80IB(10) deduction, and restored AO's assessment of interest income under "Income from other sources". The opinion states no broader new precedent beyond the application of cited authorities to the facts.

Order pronounced in open court on 05-12-2018. Members: (Ravish Sood) (G Manjunatha).

Show full summary ...

To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

Late Puran Ratilal Mehta Through Legal Heir Madhu P Mehta, C/O Shankarlal Jauin & Associates v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cir.23(3), Mumbai Respondednt.

Per Bench, AM : These cross appeals filed by the assessee as well as the revenue are directed against separate, but identical orders of the CIT(A)-23, Mumbai dated 29-10-2010 and 31-08-2012. Since all the appeals pertain to a single assessee and also the issues are identical, for the sake of convenience, these appeals were heard together and are disposed of by this common order.

2. The assessment for AY 2005-06 was completed u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961, vide order dated 31-12-2007. Following the findings arrived at in the assessment order, assessments for AYs 2001-02 to 2004-05 were reopened u/s

147 of the Act and assessments were completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 05-12-2008. The assessment for the AY 2006-07 was completed u/s 143(3) on 29-12-2008 following the findings in assessment order for AY 2005-

06. The base year in which the core issue arises for consideration is AY 2005-

06 which is challenged in ITA No.1324/Mum/2011 by the assessee and I.T.A. No.1278/Mum/2011 by the department . In all these appeals, the issues involved are common in nature. Late Puran Ratilal Mehta

3. The revenue, through its appeals, more or less taken common grounds of appeal for all assessment years. For the sake of brevity, grounds of appeal taken for AY 2005-06 in ITA No.1278/Mum/2011 are reproduced hereunder:-

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in holding thaT capital gains tax will arise in A.Y.2008-09. In doing so, the Ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessee had received advance for flat and handed over possession of the flat. The Ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that merely because agreement for sale is not registered doe: not mean that there has been no sale. The provisions of section 45(2) are hence applicable

2. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made on account of capital gains. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in holding that the project was completed in Asst.Year 2008-09 and that thi assessee was following project completion method.

3. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in directing that the cost of construction of 26 flats constructed b Bhoomi Developers and handed over to the assessee in lieu of 19,600 sq.ft. given to Bhoomi Developers, be taken for the purpose of computing the Fair Market Value of land converted into stock in trade. Though the Ld.CIT(A) held that the year of conversion of asset into stock in trade is 1994, the Ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer ha rightly worked the cost of construction at '3007- per sq.ft. which is the rate as in the year 1994.

4. The assessee, in his appeal also has taken more or less common grounds of appeal for all assessment years under appeals. For the sake of brevity, ground of appeal taken for AY 2005-06 in ITA No.1324/Mum/2011 are reproduced hereunder:-

1. Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that land was converted into stock in trade by the i-^ appellant on 2-2-94 without properly appreciating the fact that appellant obtained IOD from Municipal Corporation on 9-1-97, CC on 6-5-98 and entered into an agreement of development of part of the land on 17-8-98 and user of land was changed from industrial to residential on 12-3-96.

2. Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming method of valuation of land on the date of conversion at stamp duty value of the flats as reduced by cost of construction as incurred by the developer, without properly appreciating the fact that correct value of the land cannot be arrived at by process of reducing market price of the flats by cost of construction.

3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering valuation report of the registered valuer valuing the land as on 30-9-98 at Rs.10,68,77,880/- while evaluating the value of the land on the date of conversion.

4. The appellant pray that correct date of conversion of land into stock in trade and correct value on date of such conversion be determined. Late Puran Ratilal Mehta

5. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a proprietor of M/s Powerline Products & M/s Venus Tiles & Marbles, got leasehold rights of land in 1975 on assignment basis admeasuring 15,000 sq.yds. The assessee was running a factory on this land. Subsequently, out of the total land, the assessee decided to take 80,000 sq.ft. for the project and hence, converted into stock in trade. The assessee has applied for permission from MCGM for plan sanction on 02-02-1994. Due to some litigation on the land, subsequently, he has written a letter to MCGM to keep his application in abeyance as a result of which MCGM had issued IOD certificate on 09-01-1997. Further, the MCGM had issued commencement certificate for construction of project on 06-05-1998. The assessee had entered into a construction agreement with M/s Bhoomi Developers for development of land and construction of housing project, viz. Maple Height, A-Wing. As per agreement, the developer has to develop 40,000 sq.ft. building. The assessee has entered into development agreement with M/s Bhoomi Developers on 17-08-1988 where, in lieu of development rights, the assessee was entitled to 26 flats with built up area of 20,400 sq.ft. whereas the developer was entitled for 25 flats with a built up area of 19,600 sq.ft. Out of the total area of land, the assessee has given part of land to M/s Bhoomi Developers in pursuance to a development agreement for development of building A-Wing and the balance Late Puran Ratilal Mehta part was retained by the assessee for construction of building B-Wing. The assessee has started receiving advance from prospective buyers of flats right from AY 2001-02 onwards. But the assessee, neither showed any income in respect of development and sale of flats for AY 2001-02 onwards, nor computed capital gain in respect of conversion of capital asset into stock in trade in terms of section 45(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961.

6. The assessment for AY 2005-06 was taken up for scrutiny. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that even though the assessee was developing a housing project and receiving advance from prospective buyers of flat, no income has been offered for taxation and hence, issued a show cause notice asking as to why income shall not be estimated @15% on total work in progress shown in the books of account. In response to show cause notice, assessee, vide his letter dated 17-11-2007 submitted that he was following project completion method for recognition of revenue and accordingly, whatever advance received from the customers, has been shown as liabilities in its books of account. The assessee further contended that the project has been completed, in all respects, during AY 2008-09 and the income from the project has been offered for taxation, when the project has been completed. The assessee further contended that he was a developer of housing projects and as per the provisions of section 80IB(10), the profit Late Puran Ratilal Mehta derived from housing project is eligible for exemption and accordingly, no income has been offered for taxation from the housing project. The AO, after considering submissions of the assessee and also on analysis of provisions of section 45(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 held that the assessee converted his plot of land into stock in trade on 02-02-1994, when he had filed an application for plan sanction before MCGM. The AO further observed that although the assessee has filed an application for keeping in abeyance the plan sanction for some reasons, but fact remains that he was having an intention to develop a housing project on the impugned land by filing application before MCGM, therefore, the date on which the assessee has filed application shall be taken as the date of conversion of capital asset into stock in trade within the meaning of section 45(2) of the I.T. Act, 1962. Accordingly, the AO computed long term capital gain from conversion of capital asset into stock in trade by taking the value of flat as on 02-02-1994. However, as per the provisions of section 45(2), the said long term capital gain will be taxed as and when the stock in trade is sold. Accordingly, reopened the assessment for the assessment years 2001-02 to 2004-05 and taxed long term capital gain on proportionate basis, on the basis of advance received from customers towards sale of flat. Insofar as computation of long term capital gain, the AO has taken ready reckoner rate of completed flat as on the date of conversion, i.e. on 02- Late Puran Ratilal Mehta 02-1994 and deducted the estimated cost of construction of Rs.300 per sq.ft. to arrive at a market value of land. The AO, by taking into account the market value of the land, computed long term capital gain by adopting cost of acquisition of Rs.3,24,59,208 as on 01-04-1981, which is further based on the report of the government approved valuer and then applied indexed cost of acquisition by taking the indexation benefit and determined long term capital gain of Rs.4,54,90,393. Though, the AO has discussed the taxability of capital gain for AY 2005-06, by mistake, the same has not been taxed and accordingly an order u/s 154 dated 23-04-2008 has been passed and taxed capital gain by taking advance received on proportionate basis. Subsequently, on the basis of findings recorded for AY 2005-06, the earlier assessment for AYs 2001-02 to 2004-05 were reopened and the resultant capital gain on conversion of capital asset into stock in trade has been worked out on the basis of advance received from the customers.

7. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). Before the CIT(A), the assessee has reiterated its submissions made before the AO to argue that the conversion of capital asset into stock in trade has taken place in AY 1998-99 when the assessee has got plan sanctioned from MCGM but not on the date of application filed for getting IOD. The assessee further contended that he has filed an application on 02-02- Late Puran Ratilal Mehta 1994 and that the said application has been kept in abeyance which is evident from the fact that the IOD has been issued on 09-01-1997 and also the certificate of commencement was issued on 06-05-1998. The assessee has entered into an agreement with M/s Bhoomi Developers on 17-04-1998 for development of A-Wing and also entered into a development agreement on17- 08-1998. All these factors go to prove an undisputed fact that the conversion has not been taken place on 02-02-1994. Therefore, the AO was erred in holding that the assessee has converted his capital asset into stock in trade on 02-02-1994. Insofar as computation of long term capital gain by taking cost of acquisition as on 01-04-1981, assessee submitted that when the registered valuer has arrived at a valuation of the land as on 30-03-1998 at Rs.10,68,77,880, the valuation of plot of land as on 02-02-1994 cannot be Rs.12,46,90,860.

8. The Ld.CIT(A), after considering relevant submissions of the assessee and also by relying upon certain judicial precedents, held that when assessee has filed application for obtaining IOD on 02-02-1994, conversion of capital asset into stock in trade as envisaged u/s 45(2) is said to have taken place on 02-02- 1994. The Ld.CIT(A) further observed that although the assessee has filed an application for keeping in abeyance the application filed for obtaining IOD, the fact remains that when he had applied for obtaining IOD with an intention to Late Puran Ratilal Mehta commence its business activity of development of project, the conversion of capital asset into stock in trade as envisaged u/s 45(2) said to have taken place on that date. Therefore, there is no error in the finding of the AO that the conversion of capital asset into stock in trade has been taken place on 02-02- 1994. What is relevant for the purpose of determination of date of conversion is the intention of the assessee, but not the dates on which the assessee has filed an application. In this case, the assessee was intended to convert the plot of land into stock in trade by constructing residential premises / flats on 02-02- 1994 which is evidenced by the fact that he has moved an application, therefore, subsequent events of obtaining IOD on 09-01-1997 and commencement certificate on 06-05-1998 is a follow up action which is irrelevant to decide the date of conversion. Insofar as computation of long term capital gain on conversion of capital asset into stock in trade, the Ld.CIT(A) held that the cost of land has to be arrived at on the basis of either the fair market value of the land as on the date of conversion or cost of construction incurred by the developer of a concerned building whereas the AO has taken an estimated amount of Rs.300 per sq.ft. towards building without any basis. The Ld.CIT(A) further observed that although the AO had sought details from M/s Bhoomi Construction towards cost of construction of building, in view of non receipt of required information, went on to estimate Late Puran Ratilal Mehta the cost of construction without any basis. Therefore, directed the AO to determine the cost of construction on the basis of cost incurred by the developer to arrive at market value of land and accordingly set aside the issue to the file of the AO to decide the issue afresh. Similarly, the question of taxability of capital gain u/s 45(2) for the land converted into stock in trade was discussed and held that in view of the project completed for AY 2008-09, the capital gain payable as per the provisions of section 45(2) will also come into play at the time when the flats are sold in AY 2008-09. Accordingly, held that long term capital gain computed on conversion of capital asset into stock in trade is taxable in the year in which the revenue from the project has been disclosed in the books of account of the assessee. Since the assessee has shown to have completed the project in all respect in AY 2008-09 and the resultant income has been offered to tax, held that capital gain also will be taxed in the AY 2008-09.

9. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee as well as the revenue are in appeals before us.

10. The Ld.DR submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) was erred in holding that capital gain tax will arise in AY 2008-09 in respect of conversion of capital asset into stock in trade as per the provisions of section 45(2) without appreciating the fact that the assessee had received advance for flat and handed over Late Puran Ratilal Mehta possession of the flat to the buyers much before AY 2008-09. The Ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that merely because the agreement for sale is registered does not mean that there has been no sale. The provisions of section 45(2) and resultant capital gin will come into operation when the assessee has sold the flats. In this case, the flats have been sold to the prospective buyers and accordingly, the AO was right in computing long term capital gain on proportionate basis on the basis of advance received from the buyers. The Ld.DR further submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) was erred in holding that the assessee is following project completion method for recognition of revenue and accordingly capital gain on conversion of capital asset into stock in trade is taxable in the year when the business income was offered to tax. When the facts gathered by the AO undisputedly prove that the assessee has deferred recognition of income on some grounds, even through the project has been completed in all respects much before AY 2008-09, the Ld.CIT(A) was erred in upholding that the action of the AO in taxing long term capital gain for AY 2001-02 to 2006-07 when the assessee has received advance from the customers and handed over the possession of the flat. The Ld.DR further submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to adopt cost of construction incurred by M/s Bhoomi Developers to arrive at fair market value Late Puran Ratilal Mehta of the land as on the date of conversion of stock in trade, ignoring the fact that the AO has rightly applied R.300 per sq.ft. which is the rate as in the year 1994.

11. The Ld.AR for the assessee, on the other hand, submitted that when the Ld.CIT(A) had accepted the fact that the assessee had obtained IOD on 09-01- 1997 and C.C. on 06-05-1998 and entered into an agreement for development of part of the land on 17-08-1998, erred in concluding that conversion of capital asset into stock in trade has taken place on 02-02-1994 when the assessee had filed an application before MCGM for obtaining IOD. The Ld.AR for the assessee further submitted that the assessee, though filed an application before MCGM on 02-02-1994, the land in question was an industrial land upto 12-03-1996 before conversion of land into residential land by the revenue authorities. The MCGM has granted IOD on 09-01-1997 and also permitted to start construction on 06-05-1998. When all these evidences undisputedly prove the fact that the capital asset was not converted into stock in trade before 02-02-1994, the Ld.CIT(A) went on to give a finding that the capital asset was converted into stock in trade on 02-02-1994 without any basis. The Ld.AR further submitted that date of conversion is not the date on which the assessee intended to commence its business, but it will be the date on which the asset becomes capable of being used as stock in trade. In this regard he relied upon the decision of ITAT, Mumbai Benches in the case of Late Puran Ratilal Mehta Estate of Late NJ Patel vs DCIT (2007) 17 SOT 543. The assessee also relied upon the decision of Vidhyadhar Containers Ltd vs DCIT 30 CCH 547.

12. The Ld.AR further submitted that the land was treated as factory building upto 31-03-1998 and only after getting permission from the concerned authorities, the assessee has converted its capital asset into stock in trade, therefore, the lower authorities were erred in concluding that conversion had taken place on 02-02-1994. Insofar as determination of long term capital gain by taking fair market value of the land, the Ld.AR submitted that the AO has taken ready reckoner rate of constructed flat as on 02-02-1994 @ Rs.1,560 per sq.ft. and the same has been reduced by estimated cost of construction of Rs.300 per sq.ft. to arrive at market value of Rs.12,46,90,860. The AO, on the basis of estimated fair market value of the land, computed long term capital gain of Rs.4,54,90,393 by reducing indexed cost of acquisition of Rs.7,92,00,467 by taking fair market value of the land as on 01-04-1981. The AO has taken estimated cost of construction without appreciating the fact that the land value cannot be determined by reverse working ready reckoner rate by adopting estimated cost of construction. The cost of land can be either determined on the basis of ready reckoner rate as on the date of conversion or actual cost incurred by the developer for construction of building. M/s Bhoomi Developers has filed requisite details vide letter dated 20-04-2011 as per Late Puran Ratilal Mehta which, cost of construction per sq.ft. has been arrived at Rs.591. Therefore, the AO was erred in taking Rs.300 per sq.ft. towards cost of construction.

13. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The solitary dispute in this group of appeals for AYs 2001-02 to 2006-

07 is computation of long term capital gain on conversion of capital asset into stock in trade and the year in which such capital gain is taxable in the hands of the assessee. The AO has taken 02-02-1994 as the date of conversion of capital asset into stock in trade. The assessee has challenged the date of conversion adopted by the AO for the reason that conversion had not taken place on 02-02-1994, because although the assessee had intended to develop the property as stock in trade, because of regulatory reasons and certain legal disputes, the IOD has been issu-05-1998 by the MCGM. Therefore, without any authority of IOD and commencement certificate, the business cannot have taken place by merely filing an application for obtaining IOD. We do not find any merit in the argument of the assessee for the reason that the date of conversion of capital asset into stock in trade shall be determined either on the basis of entry passed in the books of account of the assessee or the intention of the assessee to exploit the capital asset into stock in trade for its business purpose. In this case, undisputedly, the assessee has not passed any entry in his books of account for converting its capital asset into stock in trade. But, Late Puran Ratilal Mehta the assessee intended to develop the impugned land into a stock in trade by filing an application for IOD before MCGM on 02-02-1994 which is the date on which conversion of capital asset into stock in trade said to have taken place. Although the IOD has been issued on 09-01-1997 and commencement certificate has been issued on 05-09-1998, what is relevant to determine the date of conversion is the intention of the assessee to commercially exploit the property which is on 02-02-1994. Though the assessee has relied upon certain judicial precedents including the decision of co-ordinate bench in the case of Late Shri N.J. Patel (supra), we find that the facts are entirely different from that of assessees case, therefore, we are of the considered view that the lower authorities were right in coming to the conclusion that the conversion of capital asset into stock in trade said to have been taken place on 02-02-1994.

14. Coming to the computation of long term capital gain on conversion of capital asset into stock in trade. The AO has taken ready reckoner rate as on the date of conversion, i.e. on 02-02-1994 and then reduced estimated cost of construction of Rs.300 per sq.ft. for arriving at the fair market value of the land for the purpose of computation of capital gain. The AO has taken R.1,560 per sq.ft. ready reckoner rate of constructed flats as on 02-02-1994 and then reduced Rs.300/- per sq.ft. estimated cost of construction and arrived at the market value of the land of Rs.12,46,90,860. Further, on the basis of estimated Late Puran Ratilal Mehta market value, the AO has reduced indexed cost of acquisition by taking into account fair market value of the land as on 01-04-1981 at Rs.3,24,59,208 to determine long term capital gain of Rs.4,54,90,393. The fair market value taken by the AO is based on the valuation report of government approved valuer and this has been supplied by the assessee to the AO. There is no dispute with regard to the value determined by the AO as on 01-04-1981. The only dispute is with regard to the deduction of cost of construction from the reckoner value to arrive at fair market value of land. The Ld.CIT(A) had given a finding that the fair market value of the land as on the date of conversion can be determined either on the basis of ready reckoner rate or the cost of construction incurred by the developer. Although, the AO has sought details of construction from the developer, in absence of any details supplied by the developer, went on to decide the value of the land by reducing the estimated cost of construction of Rs.300 per sq.ft. Therefore, the Ld.CIT(A) has directed the AO to determine the fair market value of the land by obtaining cost of construction incurred by the developer. The assessee claims that M/s Bhoomi Developers has filed requisite details vide their letter dated 20-04-2011, as per which cost of construction per sq.ft. works out to Rs.591, as against the AOs adoption of Rs.300 per sq.ft. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the Ld.CIT(A) was right in directing the AO to determine the fair market value Late Puran Ratilal Mehta of the land by taking cost of construction incurred by the developer. Since the developer has submitted requisite details in respect of cost of construction, the AO is directed to adopt the cost of construction incurred by the developer in place of estimated construction cost taken to arrive at fair market value of the land accordingly, the ground taken by the revenue as well as the assessee are rejected.

15. The next question that came up for our consideration from this group of appeals including appeal for AY 2008-09 is year of taxability of long term capital gain as envisaged u/s 45(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The AO has taken date of conversion as 02-02-1994 and then computed long term capital gain by taking ready recknoner rate of constructed flat as on the date of conversion and determined long term capital gain of Rs.4,54,90,393. According to the AO, although the long term capital gain envisaged u/s 45(2) is payable as and when the assessee has sold the properties, but in this case, the assessee has deliberately postponed recognition of revenue from its project by giving some unplausible reasons, therefore, he came to the conclusion that long term capital gain computed as per the provisions of section 45(2) shall be chargeable to tax proportionately, on the basis of advance received from customers. Accordingly, the AO has reopened assessments u/s 147 for AYs 2001-02 to 2004-05 and charged long term capital gain derived on conversion Late Puran Ratilal Mehta of capital asset into stock in trade. The AO also computed long term capital gain for AY 2006-07 on the basis of findings given for AY 2005-06. In toto, the AO has computed long term capital gain derived from conversion of capital asset into stock in trade proportionately for AYS 2001-02 to 2006-07 on the basis of advance received from customers. It is the claim of the assessee that he is following project completion method for recognition of revenue from the project and accordingly, the business income has been offered for taxation in AY 2008-09. The assessee further contended that as per the provisions of section 45(2), long term capital gain derived from conversion of capital asset into stock in trade shall be payable in the year in which such stock in trade has been sold. Since the project has been complete in all respects in AY 2008-09 and revenue from the project has been recognised, the capital gain shall be payable in respect of the project in the year in which such capital asset has been sold, i.e. in AY 2008-09.

16. Having heard both the sides, we find merit in the arguments of the assessee for the reason that it is an undisputed fact that the assessee has not declared any business income in AYs 2001-02 to 2006-07. Though the assessee has received advance from customers, the said advance has been shown as liability in its books of account pending registration of sale deeds to the customers because the project had not been completed. It is also an Late Puran Ratilal Mehta undisputed fact that the assessee has proved with necessary evidence that the said project has been completed in all respects in AY 2008-09. It is also an undisputed fact that capital gain on conversion of capital asset into stock in trade is payable only in the year in which the assessee ultimately sells such stock in trade. In this case, on perusal of facts, there is no doubt, whatsoever with regard to completion of project in AY 2008-09. This fact has not been disputed by the AO. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the Ld.CIT(A) was right in coming to the conclusion that the project has been completed in AY 2008-09 and accordingly, the assessee has rightly recognised revenue from the project in the year in which the project has been completed. This being so, as per the provisions of section 45(2), the capital gain derived from conversion of capital asset into stock in trade shall be chargeable to tax in the year in which such stock in trade has been sold. Since these two events,

i.e. completion of project and recognition of revenue from the project has taken place in AY 2008-09, the resultant capital gain derived from conversion of capital asset into stock in trade is also taxable in AY 2008-09. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that there is no reason to interfere with the findings of the Ld.CIT(A) and hence, we are inclined to uphold the findings of Ld.CIT(A) and reject ground taken by the revenue in all appeals. Late Puran Ratilal Mehta

17. The next issue that came up for our consideration from departmental appeal for AY 2008-09 is disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80IB(10) in respect of housing project. The AO has disallowed deduction claimed u/s 80IB(10) on the ground that the assessee has not fulfilled the conditions laid down to claim such deduction as the commencement of construction of the housing project was started before 01-10-1998 and also the completion of the project was not complete in all respects before 31-03-2008. The provisions of section 80IB(10) stipulates that in order to get deduction, the eligible project should be commenced on or after 01-10-1998 and the project should be completed on or before 31-01-2008. In this case, the assessee has commenced its construction much before that date which is evident from the fact that the MCGM issued commencement certificate on 06-05-1998 and the assessee has spent amount towards development of land, i.e filling up of plot providing trench and cutters and raising compound wall, etc. The AO further observed that even though the provision mandates completion of project on or before 31-03-2008, on perusal of details it is clear that the assessee has not completed the project. The MCGM has not issued occupation certificate. Therefore, the claim made by the assessee u/s 80IB(10) is not in accordance with the said provisions and accordingly denied the benefit of deduction. Late Puran Ratilal Mehta

18. It is the claim of the assessee that the project has been started on 05-10- 1998 even though IOD has been issued by MCGM on 09-01-1997 and commencement certificate issued on 06-05-1998. The project stated to have been commenced only when the assessee has started physical construction activity which happened in this case on 05-10-1998. Therefore, the first objection of the AO that the project was started before 01-10-1998 is not based on any evidence. In this regard, the assessee has furnished a certificate from the architect where it was stated that A-Wing of the building commenced on 05-10-1998. The assessee further stated that the building has been completed in all respects before 31-03-2008. Even though the assessee could not get occupation certificate from the MCGM which is because of certain legal hurdles in view of the nature of land on which the building was constructed. Otherwise, the assessee has obtained all other formalities including permission from fire fighting department of Municipal Corporation, certificate for lift operation from Municipal Corporation and also furnished architects certificate for completion of building on 27-11-2007. The assessee also filed copies of possession letter issued to occupants of the building along with certificate of civil engineer dated 14-01-2008 in order to prove that the building has been completed in all respects. Merely for the reason tht OC has not been issued by MCGM, it cannot be said that the building has not been completed within the Late Puran Ratilal Mehta stipulated time. In this regard, the assessee has relied upon various judicial precedents including the decision of Honble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Hindustan Samuh Awas Ltd 62 Taxman.Com.175 (Bom).

19. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The Ld.CIT(A) has negated the observations made by the AO for denial of deduction u/s 80IB(10). Although, the AO has made observations with regard to the date of commencement of project and also the date of completion of project to deny the benefit, the Ld.CIT(A) gave a categorical finding that the construction of the project has been started on or after 01-10- 1998 and the project has been completed on or before 31-03-2008. The Ld.CIT(A) has taken support from various details filed by the assessee including architects certificate, as per which A-Wing of the building has commenced on 05-10-1998. Even though, the assessee has done certain works in the site before 01-10-1998 which has been done, in order to comply with the directions of MCGM which stipulates that before issue of certificate of commencement, the assessee has to make the land suitable for construction by carrying out necessary filling and other works. The basic works carried out by the assessee including construction of compound wall and filling up of land cannot be considered as commencement of construction of the building. The said two works have been done before issue of commencement certificate by Late Puran Ratilal Mehta MCGM on 06-05-1998. In fact, the actual construction work has been commenced on 05-10-1998 as per the certificate of architect. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the AO was incorrect in observing that the project work has been started before 01-10-1998.

20. Coming to the date of completion of project. According to the AO, the project has not been completed before 31-03-2008 as per the requirement of provisions of section 80IB(10). The AO has given this finding on the sole basis of no OC certificate from MCGM. On the other hand, the assessee has filed enormous details including certificate by fire fighting department, certificate for lift operation from Municipal Corporation, architects certificate for completion of building on 27-11-2007, copies of possession letter issued to the buyers of the flat and also certificate of complete of civil engineer dated 14-01- 2008. On perusal of details filed by the assessee, we find that the project has been completed before 31-03-2008. Insofar as occupation certificate, though it is necessary to obtain occupation certificate from MCGM after completion of the project, in this case, on perusal of details, it is very clear that the assessee has filed an application before MCGM for issue of occupation certificate on 19- 05-2005 in case of A-Wing of the building. In respect of B-Wing, the details filed by the assessee including various permissions obtained from concerned departments, it is abundantly clear that the building has been completed in all Late Puran Ratilal Mehta respects before 31-03-2008. The assessee has given reasons for not obtaining OC from the Municipal Corporation as per which there was an ongoing dispute between the authorities and the land owners in respect of nature of land before the Honble High Court because of which, the assessee could not get OC from the Municipal Corporation authorities. However, all other required permissions, including fire fighting clearance and lift operation has been issued by Municipal Corporation after ensuring that the building has been completed and fit for occupation. Therefore, we are of the considered view that merely for the reason that OC was not issued by Municipal Corporation, the AO cannot ignore all other evidences filed by the assessee to prove that the said project has been completed within the stipulated time as per the provisions of section 80IB(10) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. This legal proposition is supported by the decision of Honble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs Hindustan Samuh Awas (supra), where it was held that completion of housing project is a physical act which can be demonstrated on the spot and also through certificate issued by an architect. The Honble Gujarat High Court in the case of ITO vs Saket Corporation 234 Taxmn.com 435 (Guj) held that when the building is completed in all respects, obtaining OC is not a mandatory requirement in order to ascertain whether the building was completed or not for the purpose of deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Late Puran Ratilal Mehta ITAT, Pune Bench in the case of Runwal Motel Housing Pvt Ltd in ITA No.1015/PN/2011 had considered similar issue in the light of non issue of occupation certificate by municipal authorities and after considering relevant facts, held that when the assessee has handed over possession of the flat to the buyers, merely for non receipt of completion certificate, deduction cannot be denied. The Ld.CIT(A), after apprising all facts, held that the assessee has fulfilled conditions prescribed u/s 80IB(10) in order to be eligible for deduction for eligible profits. We do not find any error or infirmity in the findings of the Ld.CIT(A) and hence, we are inclined to uphold the findings of Ld.CIT(A) and reject ground taken by the revenue.

21. The next issue that came up for our consideration for AY 2008-09 is chargeability of interest receipt from bank FD. The assessee has earned interest on FDR kept in bank and the same has been deducted from the cost of construction to arrive at net expenditure incurred for the project. According to the assessee, interest earned on FDR is a business receipt as it has parked surplus funds generated from business in banks in order to earn interest income and reduce construction expenses. Since there is a direct nexus between interest earned from FDR and business activity of the assessee, he has rightly treated interest income as part of its business receipts. The AO has assessed interest earned on FDRs under the head Income from other sources Late Puran Ratilal Mehta on the ground that the nature of activity, which decides the head of income, whether it is assessable under the head Income from other sources or Income from business or profession. The AO further observed that merely because the assessee has used its business funds to earn interest income, the character of the receipts cannot be changed when assessees main business activity is construction and development of flats. The AO has analysed the fund flow position of the assessee to come to the conclusion that the funds deployed in FDR is arising out of profit derived from the project and hence, resultant interest income is assessable under the head Income from other sources.

22. We have heard both the parties and considered material available on record. The assessee has earned interest income on FDRs kept in bank and treated the same as part of its business receipts. According to the assessee, it has parked surplus funds generated from business in order to maximise receipts and reduce construction cost, therefore, there is a direct nexus between interest income and business activity of the assessee and hence, interest earned from FDRs is assessable under the head Income from business or profession.

23. Having heard both the sides, we do not find any merit in the arguments of the assessee for the reason that a particular receipt is assessable under a Late Puran Ratilal Mehta particular head of income shall be decided on the basis of nature of receipt with reference to the main business activity of the assessee. In this case, the assessee is in the business of development and construction of flats. Although the funds generated from business are sourced to FDRs kept in bank, the interest income earned from FDRs cannot be considered as business receipts when the assessees main activity is not lending money for interest. The assessee is in the business of real estate development and construction. He had kept surplus funds available with him in the bank in short term FDR in order to earn certain interest income. Therefore, in order to fix a particular receipt under particular head of income, there should be direct nexus between the receipt and the activity carried out by the assessee. If a particular receipt is generated out of its main activity of carrying out construction of buildings and flats, then obviously, the said receipt falls within the head Income from business or profession. If surplus fund not required immediately for business purpose is kept in bank FDRs to earn interest, obviously, the said interest income cannot be considered as part of assessees main business activity. In this case, the AO has brought out clear facts that the assessee has deployed its profit derived from business activity in short term fixed deposit in order to earn interest income. The Ld.CIT(A) has allowed relief to the assessee by following the Honble Bombay High Court decision in the case of CIT vs Lok Late Puran Ratilal Mehta Housing 308 ITR 356(Bom). We find that the facts of the case before the Honble Bombay High Court are that the assessee has borrowed loans for the purpose of business and when funds were not immediately required for business, parked surplus funds in short term FD to recoup interest payable on loans. Under those facts, the Honble Court came to the conclusion that interest earned from short term FD is part of business receipt of the assessee. In this case, on perusal of facts, we find that the AO has arrived at a conclusion that the assessee has not borrowed any funds and whatever funds deployed in short term FD are generated out of his own business profits. The assessee failed to controvert the findings of the AO with any details. Under these facts, the ratio laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Totgar Co- operative Sales Society Ltd vs ITO (2010) 322 ITR 283 (SC) will squarely apply, where it was held that the Parliament has included specific business profit into the definition of the word income. Therefore, one is required to give a precious meaning to the words Profits and gains of business or profession. In the instant case, when we apply the ratio laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in the said case, we find that interest earned on short term FD could not be said to be attributable to the activities of the assessee, mainly carrying on the business of construction and development of flats. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the AO was right in assessing interest earned on Late Puran Ratilal Mehta FDR under the head Income from other sources. The Ld.CIT(A), without appreciating these facts directed the AO to assess interest under the head Income from business or profession, as claimed by the assessee. Hence, we reverse the finding of the Ld.CIT(A) and restore the assessment of interest income under the head Income from other sources.

24. In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos 1320 to 1325/Mum/2011 are dismissed and appeals filed by the revenue in ITA Nos 1274 to 1277/Mum/2011 and ITA Nos 1278 & 1279/Mum/2011 are also dismissed. The appeal filed by the revenue in ITA 6646/Mum/2012 is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 05 -12-2018. Sd/- sd/- (Ravish Sood) (G Manjunatha) Judicial Member ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dt : 05 December, 2018 Pk/- Late Puran Ratilal Mehta Copy to :

1. Appellant

2. Respondent

3. CIT(A)

4. CIT

5. DR /True copy/ By order Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, Mumbai

Late Puran Ratilal M... v. Assistant Commission...