Properties Pvt. ltd. 46 SOT 208, in Tivoli Investment and Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT

RAMETI DEVI JAIN,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 39, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Rameti Devi Jain, 82, The Assistant Commissioner Maker Chambers Iii, Of Income Tax, Central Circle Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai- 6(4), Air Building, 19Th Floor, 400021. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aabpj1887B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Mr. Chaitanya Anjaria, Dr Date Of Hearing : 09/05/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 27/05/2019

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Rameti Devi Jain, 82, The Assistant Commissioner Maker Chambers III, of Income Tax, Central Circle Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai- 6(4), Air Building, 19th floor, 400021. Mumbai-400021. PAN No. AABPJ1887B Appellant Respondent Assessee by : None Revenue by : Mr. Chaitanya Anjaria, DR Date of Hearing : 09/05/2019 Date of pronouncement: 27/05/2019 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment year…

SATYPAL JAIKUMAR JAIN,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 39, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2010-11 Acit, Satyapal Jaikumar Jain, Cc-39, R. No.32(1), 82, Maker Chambers-Iii, बनाम/ Ground Floor, Nariman Point, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400021 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aabpj1888Q Assessment Year: 2010-11 Satyapal Jaikumar Jain, Acit, 82, Maker Chambers-Iii, Cc-39, R. No.32(1), बनाम/ Nariman Point, Ground Floor, Vs. Mumbai-400021 Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aabpj1888Q

…jurisdiction High Court in 323 ITR 104 (supra) has ITA Nos.3831 & 3965/Mum/2014 16 Satyapal Jaikumar Jain thrown light on the issue. The decision in ITO vs Spearhead Properties Pvt. ltd. 46 SOT 208, in Tivoli Investment and Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. vs ACIT 130 ITR 521 and in ITO vs Hansa Motors Works. 46 SOT 160 has also discussed identical issue. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), while confirming the addition and enhancing the annual increase of 5% to the rateable value is without any basis. So far as, the observation of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) that municipal authorities have…

ACIT CC 39, MUMBAI vs. SATYPAL JAIN, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2010-11 Acit, Satyapal Jaikumar Jain, Cc-39, R. No.32(1), 82, Maker Chambers-Iii, बनाम/ Ground Floor, Nariman Point, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400021 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aabpj1888Q Assessment Year: 2010-11 Satyapal Jaikumar Jain, Acit, 82, Maker Chambers-Iii, Cc-39, R. No.32(1), बनाम/ Nariman Point, Ground Floor, Vs. Mumbai-400021 Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aabpj1888Q

…jurisdiction High Court in 323 ITR 104 (supra) has ITA Nos.3831 & 3965/Mum/2014 16 Satyapal Jaikumar Jain thrown light on the issue. The decision in ITO vs Spearhead Properties Pvt. ltd. 46 SOT 208, in Tivoli Investment and Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. vs ACIT 130 ITR 521 and in ITO vs Hansa Motors Works. 46 SOT 160 has also discussed identical issue. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), while confirming the addition and enhancing the annual increase of 5% to the rateable value is without any basis. So far as, the observation of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) that municipal authorities have…

ACIT CC 39, MUMBAI vs. LAXMI SATYAPAL JAIN, MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

…e valuation by saying that the yardstick followed by Hon’ble jurisdiction High Court in 323 ITR 104 (supra) can be ignored, in view of the decision in ITO vs Spearhead Properties Pvt. ltd. 46 SOT 208, in Tivoli Investment and Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. vs ACIT 130 ITR 521 and in ITO vs Hansa Motors Works. 46 SOT 160. Without going into much deliberation, we have already deliberated upon the issue in the foregoing paras of the order (in the appeal of the assessee), therefore, on the same reasoning, we find no merit in the appeal of the Revenue. Finally, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the Revenue…