TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (9) TMI 99
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d under section 154 r/w section 250 of the Act by the learned CIT(A)-2, Mumbai, which pertain to the assessment year 2015-16. ITA no.3858/Mum./2019 [Revenue's Appeal against order u/s 143(3) of the Act] 2. The Revenue filed the present appeal on the following grounds:- "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in appreciating the fact that the assessee is engaged in the business of land development and construction and has constructed and sold commercial premises during the year under consideration. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in appreciating the fact that the assessee shows in the Balance sheet, the constru....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt dated 03/11/2009 made between the parties, Rangnath Somani (on behalf of M/s. Onkarmal & Company) and assessee. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to delete the addition of Rs. 2,43,04,000/- on account 8% profit treating as Contractor without appreciating the fact mentioned in agreement for contribution towards contribution cost dated 31.03.2011. 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to delete the addition of Rs. 2,43,04,000/- on account 8% profit treating as Contractor ignoring the AO's reasoning as per paras 12.04 to 12.6 of the assessment order." 4. Insofar are grou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....also gone through the elaborated findings recorded to the effect that assessee was used as a SPV (Special Purpose Vehicle) by SNCML for the construction of "LodhaSupremus‟, which is more likely a Cooperative Society carrying out work for and on behalf of its members out of the cost met by them and no profit could arise in the hands of SPV. Thus, the additions were rightly deleted by Ld. CIT(A). Moreover, no new facts or contrary judgments have been brought on record before us in order to controvert or rebut the findings so recorded by Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, there are no reasons for us to interfere into or deviate from the findings so recorded by the Ld.CIT(A). Hence, we are of the considered view that the findings so recorded....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....med that the assessee acted as a contractor and estimated profit @ 8% of cost. There is nothing on record that the assessee acted as a "work contractor" on behalf of SNCML to construct the building. The contribution agreement referred to by the AO is nothing but assigning the supervision of the construction to the assessee by SNCML as per section 10 of MOFA. The said agreement unlike that of any work contract, does not assign any contractual profit or commission to the assessee company. The assessee received contribution from the prospective unit buyers. The said contribution is entirely taken into account by SNCML for determining profit from the project. It offered the entire profit to tax. The said profit has been taxed in the hands of SN....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appearing for the parties agreed before us that the issue arising out of the aforesaid grounds of appeal is covered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee which have been decided by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in appeals filed by the Revenue namely ITO v/s Kiddepore Holdings Ltd., ITA no.5541/Mum./2017, for the A.Y. 2011-12, ITA no.5542/Mum./ 2017, for A.Y. 2013-14 and ITA no.5543/ Mum./2017, for A.Y. 2014-15, order dated 2nd December 2020, wherein the Co-ordinate Bench has rejected the claim of the Revenue by observing as under:- 14. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. In the instant case, the entire project land was owned by SNCML and it was merely the godown rig....