Smitaben N. Ambani v. CWT

RAVI K SHETH ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -5(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Ravi K Sheth Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp , Income Tax -5(3)(1), Esplanade House, 2Nd Floor, Mumbai Vs. 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai - 400001 (Pan : Aaips7341E) (Assessee) (Respondent)

…said order, which for the sake of convenience is reproduced as under: "We have considered rival contentions and found that the issue is covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Smt. Smitaben N. Ambani Vs. CWT, reported in (2010) 323 ITR 104 (Born). wherein it was held that the basis on which a self-occupied property is valued under rule 1BB of the Wealth-tax Rules and municipal ratable value is arrived at under the municipal law is the same i.e. "a reasonable amount of rent that can be expected by the owner from a hypothetical tenant". That while arriving at such reasonable amount o…

SMT. TEJAL KAUSHAL SHAH ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, 25(1)(5), MUMBAI

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

Bench: MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member), SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

…should be considered for determining the ALV of the property. The ld. AR relied on the following decisions: a. CIT v. Tip Top Typography [2014] 368 ITR 330 (Bom) b. CIT v. Moni Kumar Subha [2011] 333 ITR 38 (Del.)(FC) c. Smt. Kokilaben D. Ambani v. CIT [2010] 323 ITR 104 (Bom.) 10 Smt. Tejal Kaushal Shah 14. The ld. DR on the other hand controverted the said fact and stated that the assessee has failed to furnish any documentary evidences to establish the fact that the said property was used by the assessee and her husband for their business purposes. The ld. DR relied on the order of the lower authorities. 15.…

DR. NIRMAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ITO CIRCLE-11(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 4825 & 4826/Mum/2019 (A.Y: 2010-11 & 2013-14) Dr. Nirmal Jain Vs. Ito, Circle – 11(1)(3) 2403/2404, Tower-B, Room No. 202, Oberoi Woods, Oberoi Aayakar Bhavan, Garden City, Goregaon Mumbai – 400020. (E), Mumbai – 400063 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaopj1273 Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr. Madhur Agrawal.Ar Respondent By : Ms.Neena Jeph.Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29-.03.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Mumbai For A.Y.2010-11 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act & For A.Y.2013-14 U/Sec143(3) & 250 Of The Act.

…er dated 16 the April, 2018 passed in ITA No. 1285 of 2015. The court while dismissing the revenue’s appeal, relied on the decision of this court in the case of Smt. Smitaben N. Akbani Vs. CWT ITA No. 4825 & 4826/Mum/2019 Dr. Nirmal Jain, Mumbai. reported in 323 ITR 104. In such decision, this court was considering a similar question in context of valuing the self occupied property, for the purpose of wealth tax of the assessee. The provisions for assessing the value of the property were similar to those applicable in case of assessee’s annual rateable value in terms of Sec. 23 of the Act. This question is, ther…

JUBILIANT ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 3 (2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6578/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Jubiliant Enterprises Pvt. बिधम/ Acit-3(2)(1) Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Vs. 11-B, Mittal Tower, B-Wing, 400020. Free Press Journal Marg, Mumbai-400021. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6048/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Acit-3(2)(1) बिधम/ Jubiliant Enterprises Pvt. Room No.674, 6Th Floor, Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. 11-B, Mittal Tower, B- Road, Mumbai-400020. Wing, Free Press Journal Marg, Mumbai-400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcj4688D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala Revenue By: Shri Sunil Deshpande (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01/04/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/06/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee As Well As Revenue Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 18.07.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -08, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2006-07. Ita Nos. 6578/M/2019 6048/M/2019 A.Y.2006-07

…is respect also referred to the following decisions: I. Mrs. Sheila Kaushish Vs. CIT 131 ITR 435 (SC) 2. Diwan Daulat Kapoor Vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee 122 ITR 700 (SC) 3. C/T Vs. Moni Kumar Subba 240 CTR 97 (Del) (FB) and 4. Smitaben N. Ambani Vs CWT 323 ITR 104 (Bom) properties at Corporate Park at Rs.4,44,27,866/- and in respect of the properties at Kamala Mill Compound at Rs.1,44,92,240/-. The AO further noted that even if, notional interest @16% of the deposits is taken and added to the rental value declared by the assessee, then the annual rental value, so arrived would be almost the same as arrive…

RAVI K SHETH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Bleshri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleshri Ravi K. Sheth V. Dcit – 5(3) C/O Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Room No. 573 2Nd Floor, Esplande House Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg Mumbai – 400020 Fort, Mumbai – 400001 Pan: Aaips7341E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Percy Paridiwala Department By : Shri Bharat Andhle

…n the certificate issued by “The Great Eastern Co- operative Housing Society Ltd.,” as the property was not let out but used as self-occupied property. Further, relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Smitaben N. Ambani v. CWT [323 ITR 104] the assessee submitted that “the sum for which the property might be reasonably expected to let from year to year” as is found in section 23(1)(a) of the Act is a rateable value as determined by 5 Shri Ravi K. Sheth the Municipal Authorities. Several other decisions were also relied on by the assessee before the Assessing Officer. 7. In respect…

ANAND J. JAIN,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 6(4), MUMBAI

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 6716/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Shri Anand J. Jain Dcit-Circle 6(4) बनाम/ 19Th Floor, Air India Building 82, Maker Chambers-Iii Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Vs. Mumbai – 400 021 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabpj-1890-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Michael Jerald-Ld. Dr

…ion of this Court by order dated 16th April, 2018 passed in Income Tax Appeal No.1285 of 2015. The Court while dismissing the Revenue's appeal, relied on the decision of this Court in case of Smt. Smitaben N. Ambani v/s. Commissioner of Wealth Tax reported in 323 ITR 104. In such decision, this Court was considering a similar question in context of valuing the self-occupied property, for the purpose of wealth tax of the assessee. The provisions for assessing the value of the property were similar to those applicable in case of assessee's annual rateable value in terms of Section 23 of the Act. This question is, t…

TRENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. C.I.T.-2(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Trent Ltd., V. Add. Cit – 2(3) Bombay House, 2Nd Floor, 24 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Homi Mody Street, Fort Mumbai Mumbai – 400 001 Pan: Aaacl1838J (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Cit – 2(3) V. M/S. Trent Ltd., Room No. 556, 5Th Floor Bombay House, 2Nd Floor, 24 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Homi Mody Street, Fort Mumbai - 400 020 Mumbai – 400 001 Pan: Aaacl1838J (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Trent Ltd., V. Dy. Cit – 2(3) Bombay House, 2Nd Floor, 24 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Homi Mody Street, Fort Mumbai Mumbai – 400 001 Pan: Aaacl1838J (Appellant) (Respondent)

…he decision of the assessee’s own case in ITA.No. 1163/Mum/2011 dated 27.08.2018 for A.Y. 2006-07 and also the following decisions: - i) M.V. Sonavala v. CIT [1989] 42 Taxman 123 (Bombay High Court) ii) Smt. Smitaben N. Ambani v. Commissioner of Wealth [2009] 323 ITR 104 (Bombay High Court) iii) Tip Top Typography vs CIT [2014] 48 taxmann.com 191 (Bombay High Court) 50. Ld. DR vehemently supported the order of the Assessing Officer. 51. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below and the decision of the Coordinate Bench in assessee’s own case for the A.Y. 2006-07. On a perus…

HARSH ANANDKUMAR JAIN,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 6(4), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Bleshri Harsh A Jain V. Dcit, Central Circle – 6(4) 19Th Floor, Air India Building 82, Maker Chambers Iii Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Nariman Point, Mumbai Pan: Afbpj0984J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Lata Parulekar Department By : Shri K.C. Selvamani

…said order, which for the sake of convenience is reproduced as under: “We have considered rival contentions and found that the issue is covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Smt. Smitaben N. Ambani Vs. CWT, reported in (2010) 323 ITR 104 (Born), wherein it was held that the basis on which a self-occupied property is valued under rule 1BB of the Wealth-tax Rules and municipal ratable value is arrived at under the municipal law is the same i.e. "a reasonable amount of rent that can be expected by the owner from a hypothetical tenant". That while arriving at such reasonable amount o…