330 (Lucknow); Varma Family Trust v. 6th ITO

M.S.Wellness N. Solutions (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 10(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

…on the following decisions :- i) Sharmila Tagore Vs. JCIT 92006) 150 TAXMANN 4 (Mum); ii) Saif Ali Khan Vs. ACIT, ITA No.1653/Mum/2009; iii) ACIT Vs. Sunil Kumar Agarwal (2012) 20 taxmann.com 330(Lucknow); iv) Realty finance & Leasing (P) Ltd. Vs. ITO (2006) 5 SOT 348 (Mum); v) Neelam Cable Mfg. CO Vs. ACIT (1997) 63 ITD 1 (Delhi); and vi) CIT Vs. R.J. Wood Pvt. Ltd. (2012) 20 Taxmann.com 599 (Delhi). Finally, ld. AR submitted that in view of the said decisions, in which it has clearly been laid down by the various judicial forums that all these expenses are allowed to be deducted while computing the annual le…

S.C.Brothers, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 24(3), Mumbai

In the result this ground of appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhm/S S C Brothers, Acit Circle-24(3) C.T.S No. 201, Raheja Mumbai. Titanium Western Express Highway, Goregaon (E), Vs. Mumbai-400063 Pan: Aarfs6197F Appellant Respondent M/S S C Brothers, Acit Circle-24(3) C.T.S No. 201, Raheja Mumbai. Titanium Western Express Highway, Goregaon (E), Vs. Mumbai-400063 Pan: Aarfs6197F Appellant Respondent M/S S C Brothers, Acit Circle-31(3) C.T.S No. 201, Raheja Mumbai. Titanium Western Express Highway, Goregaon (E), Vs. Mumbai-400063 Pan: Aarfs6197F Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Dr. K. Shivram Sr Advocate With Ms. Neelam Jadhav Advocate Respondent By : Shri V. Justin (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 06.06.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.07.2018 Order Per Pawan Singh;

…g Value (ALV) as ALV is to be taken on the basis of rent received by owner. In support of his submission, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of Tribunal of Sharmila Tagore vs. JCIT 93 TTJ 483 (Mum), Realty Finance & Leasing P. Ltd. vs. ITO 5 SOT 348 (Mum) and Ultima Search vs. ACIT [2016] 75 taxman.com 205 and DCIT vs. Yogen D. Sanghavi ITA No. 466 Mum 2014 dated 01.11.2017. In alternative submission the ld AR for the assessee submits that notional deduction @30% allowable under section 24(a) has to be allowed on addition of Rs. 13,52,699/- in the receipt of rent. 11. On the other hand the…

DCIT 24(2), Mumbai vs. Yogen D. Sanghvi, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 4776/Mum/2014 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

…rty and, therefore, can only be considered as having been included - at the said amount, i.e., at cost, by the two parties in the reckoning/determining of the same (rental)." h. The'Muribai Tribunal in case of Realty Finance & Leasing (P.) Ltd. vs. ITO (2006) 5 SOT 348 (Mum) held that society charges paid by appellant in respect of its let out properties are allowable while computing 9 I.T.A. No. 4776/Mum/2014 Yogen D. Sanghvi annual value. This was followed in case of ITO vs. Farouk D. Vevaina (2009) 121 Ui 510 (Mum). i. The Gauhati' Tribunal in case of ITO vs. Vijay Kumar Bawari 19 1TJ 562 (Gau) held that wher…

Banggreen Holdings P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for AY 2005-06 is allowed

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singh

…bmission the ld AR for the assessee relied on the following decisions; (i) Aloo Bejan Daver Vs. ITO (ITA Nos. 2381 & 2382/Mum/2010 (Mum.-Trib.). (ii) CIT Vs. R.J. Wook (P.) Ltd. (20 taxmann.com 599) (Del.-HC). (iii) Realty Finance & Leasing (P.) Ltd. Vs. ITO (5 SOT 348) (Mum.-Trib.) (iv) Bombay Oil Industries Ltd. Vs. DCIT (82 ITD 626) 9Mum.-Trib.) (v) Varma Family Trust Vs. ITO (7 ITD 392) (Mum.-Trib.) (vi) Sharmila Tagore Vs. JCIT (150 Taxman 4) (Mum.-Trib.) In support of his third preposition, the ld. AR of the assessee argued that the income from letting out is one of the sole objects of the assessee and acc…

Ranjeet D Vaswani, Mumbai vs. ACIT 12(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10

…H’ Bench-Mumbai; ACIT vs. Mohanlal Rupesh Kumar (2001) 114 taxman 81 (Gauhati) (Mag.); ACIT vs. Sunil Kumar Agarwal (2012) 20 taxmann.com 330 (Lucknow); Varma Family Trust vs. 6th ITO (1984) 7 ITD 392 (Bom) and Realty Finance & Leasing (P) Ltd. vs. ITO (2006) 5 SOT 348 (Mum). 6. The learned DR submits that the Act clearly mentions that while calculating the income from house property, only certain allowable deductions are to be allowed u/s 23 and 24 of the Act. What specific deductions are to be allowed in computing the income under the head income from house property have been categorically and unequivocally sp…

Dhano B Vaswani, Mumbai vs. ACIT 12(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10

…H’ Bench-Mumbai; ACIT vs. Mohanlal Rupesh Kumar (2001) 114 taxman 81 (Gauhati) (Mag.); ACIT vs. Sunil Kumar Agarwal (2012) 20 taxmann.com 330 (Lucknow); Varma Family Trust vs. 6th ITO (1984) 7 ITD 392 (Bom) and Realty Finance & Leasing (P) Ltd. vs. ITO (2006) 5 SOT 348 (Mum). 6. The learned DR submits that the Act clearly mentions that while calculating the income from house property, only certain allowable deductions are to be allowed u/s 23 and 24 of the Act. What specific deductions are to be allowed in computing the income under the head income from house property have been categorically and unequivocally sp…

Manisha Ajay Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 24(2)(4), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.5785/Mum/2012 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2008-2009) Manisha Ajay Shah Vs. Ito 24(2)(4) 601/602, Adarsh Harmony, Room No. 605, Adarsh Vihar Complex, Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Off – Marve Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400 064 Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Angps 4878 K (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vivek Batra (Dr) निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Mayur A. Shah सुिवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 10/09/2015 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 09/12/2015 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A), For The Assessment Year 2008-2009, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.143(3) Of The I.T. Act. 2. First Grievance Of The Assessee Relates To Disallowance Claimed For Deduction Of Expenses At Rs.1,752/- Against Rental Income. Similarly In Ground 2, Assessee Raised Objection Against The Order Of Assessing Officer Disallowing A Claim For Deduction Of Expenses At Rs.1,69,559/- Against Rental Income Of Palm Spring Office Premises. 3. Rival Contentions Have Been Heard & Record Perused. During The Year, Assessee Had Offered Rental Income In Respect Of Sukh Sagar Office

…es, society charges, while computing income from house property have been considered and allowed in favour of assessee in the following case laws: - i. Sharmila Tagore v/s Jt. CIT (2005) 93 TTJ (Mumbai) 483 ii. Realty Finance & Leasing (P) Ltd. v/s ITO (2006) 5 SOT 348 (Mum) iii. J.B. Patel & Co. v/s. Dy. CIT 118 ITD 556 (Ahd.) 5. Expenses claimed by the assessee pertains to society maintenance charges which are covered by the orders of the above benches. Respectfully, following the same, we direct the AO to allow the same while computing Income from house property. 6. Next grievance relates to disallowance of Rs…