“annual value”

Suman P Khurana, Mumbai vs. ACIT Central Circle-3(2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2415/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Suman P. Khurana बिधम/ Acit, Central Circle-3(2) Room No.402, 4Th Floor, 501, Raheja Centre, Free Press Vs. Journal Marg, Nariman Point, Aayakar Bhawan, Maharshi Mumbai-400021. Karve Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020.S स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aahpk0190Q (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Shekhar Gupta Revenue By: Shri Hoshang B. Irani सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 24/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 21.02.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -51, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2012- 13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On The Facts Of The Case In Estimating The Annual Value Of The Property At Maker Chambers Iv, Nariman Point, Mumbai At Rs.82,86,301/- As Against Nil Declared By The Assessee & Denying The Exemption Claimed U/S 23(1)(C) By The Assessee. A.Y. 2012-13 2. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On The Facts Of The Case In Estimating The Value Of The Property At Gujranwala Town, Delhi At Rs.6,60,000/- As Against Nil Declared By The Assessee & Denying The Exemption Claimed U/S 23(1)(C) By The Assessee.

raised the following grounds: - “1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in estimating the annual value of the property at Maker Chambers IV, Nariman Point, Mumbai at Rs.82,86,301/- as against nil declared by the assessee and denying the exemption ... according to this clause, the rent received during the year was nil and that had to be taken as the annual value of the property in order to compute the income from house property.” 5. In the case of Sonu Realtors P. Ltd. (supra), the Hon’ble ITAT has held

M/S Ashish Land & Property Developers Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 9 (1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Blem/S. Ashish Land & Property V. Income Tax Officer – 9(1)(4) Developers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai 10Th Floor, 215, Atrium Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai - 400059 Pan: Aagca2673J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Anuj Kisnadwala Department By : Shri Mehul Jain

head “Income from house property” shall be computed after making the following deductions, namely: — (a) a sum equal to thirty per cent of the annual value; (b) where the property has been acquired, constructed, repaired, renewed or reconstructed with borrowed capital, the amount of any interest payable on such capital ... house property’ shall be computed after making the deductions of municipal taxes paid by the owner, a sum equal to thirty per cent of annual value and the amount of interest payable on borrowed capital where the property has been constructed, repaired, renewed or reconstructed with borrowed capital. However

Sopariwala Exports, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -8(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA N0

No.1757/Bom/1993 Dt.6th May, 1993) it was decided and held that the society maintenance charges have to be deducted even while determining the annual value of the property under Section 23 of Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant further humbly submits in the following cases of appellant's sister concerns ... JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (2005) 93 TTJ MUM 483 Held, That the society maintenance charges have to be deducted even while determining the annual value of the property under Section 23 of Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Ms. NAN DITA BENERJEE V ITO (ITA NO.1360/MUM/2000) Held, Housing society charges

Hamlet Construction (India) Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Circle- 1(1)(2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

computed under the head house property. For the computation of house property income, the only thing which is required to be determined is the annual value of property which is described in Sec 23 of the Income tax Act. On the other hand, from a plain reading of Sec 115JB

Milan Theatres Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, Circle -12(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Blem/S. Milan Theatres Pvt. Ltd., V. Income Tax Officer – Circle – 12(3)(4) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Cts 156, D.B. House Yashodham Mumbai - 400020 Goregaon (E), Mumbai -400063 Pan: Aafcm6714R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ritu Kamal Kishor Department By Shri Neha Thakur

being service tax borne by the appellant, from the amount of rent received during the year for computing the annual value in terms of section 23 of the Act and the income from house property ought to have been determined accordingly. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case ... paid during the year be deducted in terms of first proviso to section 23(1) of the Act from the rentals, in determining the annual value in terms of section 23 of the Act and the income from house property ought to have been determined accordingly. 3. It is humbly

M/S. Alfa Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-26(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

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 [two years] from the end of the financial year in which

D.C.I.T.-15(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Haware Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Navi Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

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 ... holding any house property as his stock-in- trade which is not let out for the whole or part of the year, the annual value of such property will be considered as Nil for a period up to one year from the end of the financial year in which

M/S. Satyam Realtors P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC-5(4)Dy CIT CC-5(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

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 ... regard :- “No notional income for house property held as stock-in-trade Section 23 of the Act provides for the manner of determination of annual value of house property. Considering the business exigencies in case of real estate developers, it is proposed to amend the said section

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.

grossly erred in confirming the addition made by the AO of Rs. 6,06,900/- by calculating annual value of the flat, considered as deemed let out based on rent of furnished flats in similar are instead of adopting the Municipal Retable Value as annual value as per the provisions

Akbar Hasnali Padamsee, Mumbai vs. ACIT-18(2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 6162 To 6166/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2015-16) Akbar Hasanali Padamsee बिधम/ Joint Commissioner Of 802, Vinayak Aagan Chs Ltd, Income Tax-18(2) Vs. Old Prabhadevi Road, Worli, Piramal Chambers, Parel, Mumbai-400025. Mumbai-400012. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ahfpp9512N (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ishwer Rathi Revenue By: Shri Mehul Jain (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 28.06.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -33, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2011- 12 To 2015-16. Ita. No.6162/Mum/2019 2. The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 28.06.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -33, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2011- 12. Ita Nos. 6162 To 6166/M/2019 A.Ys.2011-12 To 2015-16 3. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

received by the assessee was higher than the municipal ratable value, the appellant has rightly taken the actual rent received of Rs.27,000/- as annual value of the said property. Therefore, we allow the 1st ground of appeal. In respect of the flat at Piroja Court, Juhu (3rd floor), there

Rajeev S Reniwal, Mumbai vs. ITO Circle- 3(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

quashed. 3. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in determining the annual value of the property at 7%of the cost of the property without appreciating the fact that, the said commercial premises at Bhavnagar was used ... That the assesse is a director in that company, theAO was not satisfied about the explanation of the Bhavnagar property. He determined the annual value of same at 7% of the property value and after allowing deduction u/s. 24 made an addition of Rs. 5,25,613/-. Ld.CIT(A) confirmed

Sopariwala Exports, Mumbai vs. ACIT-CC-8(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA N0

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesopariwala Exports Vs. Acit, Cc-8(1) 21St Floor, Nirmal Bldg, R-656, Aayakar Nariman Point, Bhavan, Mumbai – Mumbai – 400021. 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacfs6325E Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms.Ritu Kamalkishore.Ar Respondent By : Mr.Dilipkumar Shah.Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 19.01.2022. Date Of Pronouncement 14.02.2022. आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of Cit(A) -50, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Income Tax Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

No.1757/Bom/1993 Dt.6th May, 1993) it was decided and held that the society maintenance charges have to be deducted even while determining the annual value of the property under Section 23 of Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant further humbly submits in the following cases of appellant's sister concerns ... JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (2005) 93 TTJ MUM 483 Held, That the society maintenance charges have to be deducted even while determining the annual value of the property under Section 23 of Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Ms. NAN DITA BENERJEE V ITO (ITA NO.1360/MUM/2000) Held, Housing society charges

Laxmi Finance & Leasing Companies Commercial Premises Cooperative Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 14(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S. Laxmi Finance & Vs. Acit – 14(1) Leasing Companies, Earnest House, Commercial Premiss Nariman Point, Co-Op Society Ltd., Mumbai – 400 021. Laxmi Towers, Plot No. C-25, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051. Pan/Gir No. : Aaajl0006F Appellant .. Respondent M/S. Laxmi Finance & Vs. Acit – 18(2) Leasing Companies, Earnest House, Commercial Premiss Nariman Point, Co-Op Socitey Ltd., Mumbai – 400 021. Laxmi Towers, Plot No. C-25, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051. Pan/Gir No. : Aaajl0006F Appellant .. Respondent

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble CIT(A) grossly erred in holding that the annual value of the vacant property should be calculated on the basis of municipal ratable value.” 7. The Ld. AR on the first disputed issue in respect ... appeal of the assessee for A.Y.2004-05 is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue for A.Y.2004-05 is dismissed. 9. In respect of determination of annual value (ALV) of the let out property, we find that the Hon’ble Tribunal has dealt at page 8 Para 3.4 on the issue

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

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman ( & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale ()

perused the materials available on record. We find that the assessee, while computing income from house property, had reduced Rs.32,78,795/-from the annual value in addition to the other statutory deduction including 30% deduction allowed towards repairs u/s 10. The assessee submitted that these expenditures represent maintenance facilities

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

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman ( & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale ()

perused the materials available on record. We find that the assessee, while computing income from house property, had reduced Rs.32,78,795/-from the annual value in addition to the other statutory deduction including 30% deduction allowed towards repairs u/s 10. The assessee submitted that these expenditures represent maintenance facilities