“annual value”

Vama Pvt Ltd(Formerly Known As Vama Department Store Pvt Ltd.), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Circle- 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon’Ble

order is reproduced as under: "The only point raised by the appellant before us is with regard to the estimation of the annual value of the property made by the lower authorities, which is much higher than the actual rent declared by the assessee. At the time of hearing ... 4831/Mum/2014 dated 04.02.2016, it has been held that where the actual rent disclosed is in the excess of the Municipal rateable value, the annual value of the property can be assessed on the basis of the actual rent. In this context, reliance also been placed on the judgement

ACIT -15(1) (2), Mumbai vs. Haware Construction Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalacit-15(1)(2), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ...... Appellant Vs. Haware Constructions Pvt. Ltd. 413-416, Vardhaman Market, Sector-17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400705. Pan: Aabch3858F ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Tejinder Pal Singh, Sr. Dr Respondent By : Sh. Devendra Jain, Adv. Date Of Hearing : 11/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 06/10/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As [‘Nfac’] Dated 24.11.2021 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter

Total 22,72,60,825/- AO issued a show cause notice to the assessee for applying section 22 r.w.s. 24(b) i.e. deemed annual value @8.5% of the cost of construction of the property as per Bombay rent control act after deduction u/s 24b @30% on the annual value ... deemed annual value u/s 22 on the cost of construction of Rs 22,72,60,825/- comes to Rs 1,93,17,170/-. Standard deduction u/s 24b @30% comes to Rs. 57, 95,151/-. Accordingly, the total income from house property

Ams Realty Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 12 (1)(1), Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2014-15

submitted that the ALV estimated by the appellant is unreasonably high. In my view, the AO was not justified in determining the Annual Value of the property on the basis of the rates of space in the locality quoted in a website. The AO overlooked the fact that the value ... factors. Therefore,, the market rent reflected in the websites such as magic brick etc. is only indicative at best. Similarly, taking the annual value as certain percentage, say 8.5%, of the investment in the property can give only a very rough estimate of the annual value of the property

DCIT 4 (3)(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Mohit Keepak Kamboj, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4285/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6384/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit-4(3)(1) बिधम/ Shri Mohit Deepak Room No. 649, 6Th Floor, Kamboj Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- A-15, Venus Co-Op. 400020. Society, R. G. Thandani Marg, Mumbai-400018. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.801/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit, Cir-6(3)(2) बिधम/ Shri Mohit Deepak R. No. 522, 5Th Floor, Kamboj Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. A-15, Venus Co-Op. Road, Mumbai-400020. Society, R. G. Thandani Marg, Mumbai-400018 स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Alcpk2213Q (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Satyaprakash Singh Revenue By: Shri P. R. Mane सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

Section 23 of the Act, since the assessee owned more than one self-occupied house property, the assessee was required to offer the annual value of the second house property by way of deemed rent u/s 23 of the Act. The AO accordingly required the assessee to offer his explanation ... assessee, he treated as A.Ys. 2010-11 & 2012-13 Mohit Deepak Kamboj Worli property as self-occupied property and accordingly proceeded to compute the annual value of the Juhu Property. According to the AO, 8.5% of the investment in the property was a reasonable annual letable value. He thus worked

ACIT Cir-6(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Shri Mohit Deepak Kamboj, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4285/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6384/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit-4(3)(1) बिधम/ Shri Mohit Deepak Room No. 649, 6Th Floor, Kamboj Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- A-15, Venus Co-Op. 400020. Society, R. G. Thandani Marg, Mumbai-400018. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.801/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit, Cir-6(3)(2) बिधम/ Shri Mohit Deepak R. No. 522, 5Th Floor, Kamboj Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. A-15, Venus Co-Op. Road, Mumbai-400020. Society, R. G. Thandani Marg, Mumbai-400018 स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Alckp2213G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Satyaprakash Singh Revenue By: Shri P. R. Mane सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

Section 23 of the Act, since the assessee owned more than one self-occupied house property, the assessee was required to offer the annual value of the second house property by way of deemed rent u/s 23 of the Act. The AO accordingly required the assessee to offer his explanation ... assessee, he treated as A.Ys. 2010-11 & 2012-13 Mohit Deepak Kamboj Worli property as self-occupied property and accordingly proceeded to compute the annual value of the Juhu Property. According to the AO, 8.5% of the investment in the property was a reasonable annual letable value. He thus worked

DCIT 4 (3)(1), Mumbai vs. Mohit Deepak Kamboj, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4285/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6384/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit-4(3)(1) बिधम/ Shri Mohit Deepak Room No. 649, 6Th Floor, Kamboj Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- A-15, Venus Co-Op. 400020. Society, R. G. Thandani Marg, Mumbai-400018. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.801/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit, Cir-6(3)(2) बिधम/ Shri Mohit Deepak R. No. 522, 5Th Floor, Kamboj Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. A-15, Venus Co-Op. Road, Mumbai-400020. Society, R. G. Thandani Marg, Mumbai-400018 स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Alckp2213G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Satyaprakash Singh Revenue By: Shri P. R. Mane सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

Section 23 of the Act, since the assessee owned more than one self-occupied house property, the assessee was required to offer the annual value of the second house property by way of deemed rent u/s 23 of the Act. The AO accordingly required the assessee to offer his explanation ... assessee, he treated as A.Ys. 2010-11 & 2012-13 Mohit Deepak Kamboj Worli property as self-occupied property and accordingly proceeded to compute the annual value of the Juhu Property. According to the AO, 8.5% of the investment in the property was a reasonable annual letable value. He thus worked

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax-23(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Laxmi Finance & Leasing Companies Commercial Premises Co-Op Soc. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit – 23(1) V. M/S. Laxmi Finance & Leasing Companies Commercial Premises Room No. 113, 1St Floor Co-Op. Soc., Limited Matru Mandir, Tardev Road C-25, G-Block, Mumbai – 400 007 Laxmi Towers, Near Icici Bank Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (E), Mumbai -400051 Pan: Aabal0964G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Madhur Agrawal Department Represented By : Shri Manoj Sinha

case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in principle by not appreciating the contention of the AO in determining the annual value of the property." (iv) "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in non applying ... upon by the ld. AO in his assessment order as well as by the assessee before him, held that in respect of vacant properties, annual value will be the municipal value u/s.23(1)(a). The assessee pleaded before the ld. CIT(A) that though these five properties as tabulated supra

Shri Manoj Lalman Awashi, Mumbai vs. Pr.Comm of Income Tax (PCIT), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Neha Builders Pvt Ltd., reported in 296 ITR 661 wherein it was held that in the case of a builder, the annual value of the property held as ‘stock in trade’ cannot be brought to tax under the head ‘income from house property’ and even if any rent has been

Nitin Raj Marwah, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 8(20), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharshi () & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal () Nitin Raj Marwah Vs Dcit-10(2)(2), Ayakar Bhavan 8Th Floor, Marwah Centre Maharshi Karve Road Krishanlal Marwah Marg Mumbai-400 020 Andheri (East) Mumbai-400 072 Pan : Aabpm2959 Appellant Respondent

amounted to double exemption and thereby Assessing Officer proceeded to hold that the London property is deemed to be let out for which the annual value of property was calculated relying on the decision of ITO vs Chem Mech Pvt Ltd (2002) 83 ITD 427 (Mum) wherein the standard rent ... said decision pertained to the year 2002 the present interest rate was to be calculated @10% of the property value taken as gross annual value for the purpose of section 23(1) of the Act and the Assessing Officer calculated Rs.17,18,989/- being 10% of the property value

Rajesh Dharamvir Gulati, Navi Mumbai-400703 vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -27, Navi Mumbai-400703

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Neha Builders Pvt Ltd., reported in 296 ITR 661 wherein it was held that in the case of a builder, the annual value of the property held as ‘stock in trade’ cannot be brought to tax under the head ‘income from house property’ and even if any rent has been ... House Property’ for the A.Y. 2017-18 due to the fact that as per the provisions of section 23(5) of the Act, the Annual value for a period of one year from the end of the financial year in which the certificate of completion of construction of the property

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tata Sons Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

issue, as emanating from the record, are: In its computation of income from house property, the assessee reduced Rs. 41,00,674 from the annual value in addition to the other statutory deductions including 30% deduction allowed under section 24 of the Act. The assessee was asked to show cause ... provision for deduction of M/s. Tata Sons Limited ITA No.4323/Mum./2017 and ITA No.4221/Mum./2017 security expenses and other expenses either from the annual value under section 23 or under section 24 of the Act. The AO further held that 30% deduction available from annual letting value covers all other

Tata Sons Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, Cir 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

issue, as emanating from the record, are: In its computation of income from house property, the assessee reduced Rs. 41,00,674 from the annual value in addition to the other statutory deductions including 30% deduction allowed under section 24 of the Act. The assessee was asked to show cause ... provision for deduction of M/s. Tata Sons Limited ITA No.4323/Mum./2017 and ITA No.4221/Mum./2017 security expenses and other expenses either from the annual value under section 23 or under section 24 of the Act. The AO further held that 30% deduction available from annual letting value covers all other

Sai Shirdi Constructions, Navi Mumbai vs. Pr. Comm of Income Tax-27, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing No

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

while making the assessment ills "143(3) for the Assessment Year 2017-18 (Assessment order dated 16.12.2019) the AO has failed to tax the annual value of the property forming part of the closing stock, under the head "Income from House Property", therefore, it is held that the Assessment Order ... order dated 16.12.2019 passed by the A.O. is set aside to the A.O. with the direction to make a fresh assessment by taxing the annual value of the property forming part of the closing stock, under the head "Income from House Property". The annual value shall be computed

Igi Investments Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT 5 (2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalassessment Years: 2013-14 M/S. Igi Investments Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Cit – 5(2)(1), 702, 7Th Floor, R. No.571, 5Th Floor, The Capital Bkc, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Bandra East, Mk Road, Mumbai- 400 051 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aacci1484R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Satish Mody, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Dinesh Singh, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 20 . 07 . 2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 27 . 07 . 2022 O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Mumbai.

appearing in the balance sheet as on 31.03.2013 therefore assessee’s plea that the property was vacant not correct. The AO has taken the annual value of the property No.1 at Rs.79,41,600/- as assessed in the preceding assessment year 2012-13. The AO has also stated that provision

DCIT Cir 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M. Visvesvaraya Industrial Research & Development Centre, Mumbai

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3697 & 3698/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 1989-90 & 1990-91) M/S M. Visvesvarya Dcit(A)-3(2)(1), R. No. 608, 6Th Floor, Industrial Research & Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, बिधम/ Development Centre Mumbai-400 005 31St Floor, Centre 1, Cuffe Vs. Parade, Colaba, Mumbai – 400 005 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aabcm0996K (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Shri Nimesh Yadav, Ld. Dr अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Firoze B. Andhyarujina & Shri Maneck F. Andhyarujina , Ld. Ars सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 21.06.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 19.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Impugned Order Of Even Date 22.02.2016, Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-8, Mumbai For The Ay 1989-90 & 1990-91. 2

circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in directing to adopt the $tandard rent fixed by the Municipal Authorities as the annual value instead of the actual rent realized by the assessee? The High Court answered the reference 78 of 1998, in para 111 of its order, page

Sai Siddhant Developers, Mumbai vs. DCIT -CC -5(4), Mumbai

In the result , all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

trade and the property or any part of the property is not let during the whole or any part of the previous year, the annual value of such property or part of the property, for the period up to one year from the end of the financial year in which

Sai Siddhant Developers, Mumbai vs. DCIT -CC-5(4), Mumbai

In the result , all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

trade and the property or any part of the property is not let during the whole or any part of the previous year, the annual value of such property or part of the property, for the period up to one year from the end of the financial year in which

M/S. Sai Siddhi Developers, Mumbai vs. DCIT -CC-5(40, Mumbai

In the result , all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

trade and the property or any part of the property is not let during the whole or any part of the previous year, the annual value of such property or part of the property, for the period up to one year from the end of the financial year in which

Shree Sai Consultants, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-5(4), Mumbai

In the result , all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

trade and the property or any part of the property is not let during the whole or any part of the previous year, the annual value of such property or part of the property, for the period up to one year from the end of the financial year in which