“deemed to be let out”

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)

submitted that the office at Masjid Bunder was occupied by her and her husband for their business purpose and the same cannot be deemed to be let out. 9 Smt. Tejal Kaushal Shah The ld. AO rejected the assessee’s contention on the ground that the assessee has not shown

DCIT-CC-4(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RAHEJA UNIVERSAL PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, cross objection filed by the Assessee is allowed,\nwhereas appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed being infructuous

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,\nMUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI\nBEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nAND

SUMIT NIRANJANKUMAR SHAH,MUMBAI vs. CIT (IT)-4, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Blesumit Niranjankumar Shah Cit (It)-4, Mumbai A-1101, Quantum Park, Near Union Bank, Gulab Nagar, Khar (West), Mumbai 400 052. Pan Aahps1841E (Appellant) (Respondent)

resident. The assessee held following three properties in India:- (a) Flat at Quantum park (Self occupied property) (b) Flat at Gabion Property (Deemed to be let out) (c) Flat at Cresset property (Lying Vacant) The quantum park and Gabion property were purchased in the immediately preceding year. The Cresset Property ... noticed earlier that the assessee has held “Quantum park property as “self occupied property” and Gabion property as ‘Deemed to be let out property’. With regard to Cresset property, it is the submission of the assessee that it was lying vacant since the date of its purchase and hence

DEEPAK KANTILAL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-19(1), MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara (Jm) & Shri Girish Agrawal (Am)

Property Holding 1 Kshitij, 1st April 2017 From 01 .04.2017 to 202, Nepean Sea to 31st March 23.07.2017 Road, Mumbai 2018 Shown as Deemed to be let out Property (DLOP) From 24.07.2017 to 31.03.2018 Shown as Self-Occupied Property (SOP) 2 Rajul, 8th Floor, 1st April 2017 Self-Occupied Property ... return of income filed for the year under consideration, appellant considered the property 'Kshitij, 202, Nepean Sea Road, Mumbai 'as 'deemed to be let out property' for first 03 months and 'self-occupied property' for the remaining period of financial year 2017-18. Appellant claimed

TARUN TOLARAM KAPOOR ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) WARD-26(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3395/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2008-09) Tarun Tolaram Kapoor बिधम/ Acit (Osc) 4/9, Vivekanand Society, Room No. 609, 6Th Floor, Vs. Th Kataria Marg, Mahim Kamaladevi Mittal (W), Mumbai – 400016. Ayurvedic Hospital Bldg, Charni Road (W), Mumbai – 400 002. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpk3828M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Siddhesh Chaugule Revenue By: Shri P.D Chougule (Addl. Cit), Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/02/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -57, Mumbai, Dated 28.07.2023 For Ay. 2011-12. 2. The Assessee Has Challenged The Validity Of The Reopening By Ao (Jurisdiction) U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). So The Legal Issue Is Taken Up First.

which is reproduced as under:- 4 A.Y. 2008-09 Tarun Tolaram Kapoor The assessee has shown four house properties as deemed to be let out properties. 1. Bangalore Property: Annual Value Rs.2,40,000/- After claiming deduction u/s.24 income comes to Rs.1,68,000/- against that assessee has claimed ... supra) by the AO dated 10.01.2013, it is noted that the AO accepts that the assessee has shown four (04) house properties as deemed to be let out properties, and thereafter, he noticed the amount shown by the assessee against 5 A.Y. 2008-09 Tarun Tolaram Kapoor each

SHAMDARSHAN PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 3(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are\nallowed

nthe submit detailed reasons for conversion of stock in trade\ninto fixed assets and why flats shown should not be\nconsidered as deemed to be let out and the notional rent to\nbe taxed under the head income from house property. In\ncompliance to notice, the assessee has filed

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

vacant and the Assessing Officer has alleged that the assessee has not offered any income in respect of one of these properties as deemed to be let out under the head “Income from house property”. The Assessing Officer further proceeded to 3 question the assessee as the assessee being ... Resident in India, the London flat has to be considered as deemed to be let out and to be charged to tax under the head “Income from house property”. The assessee’s contention that 50% of share in the London flat was not let out on rent and even otherwise

NITIN RAJ MARWAH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 8(20, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.18/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Nitin Raj Marwah बिधम/ Dcit-8(2) 8Th Floor, Marwah Centre, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Krishanlal Marwah Marg, Maharishi Karve Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai- Mumbai-400020. 400072. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpm2959F (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri M. Subramanian Revenue By: Shri Chetan M. Kacha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 25/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/07/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 26.10.2021 For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Confirming The Action Of Ao Determining A Sum Of Uk Pounds 21,180 As The Annual Letting Value (Alv) Of A Residential House Property Owned By The Assessee In London, [United Kingdom (Uk)] & Making Addition Of The Same. 3. The Brief Facts As Noted By The Ao Is That The Assessee Had Filed Return Of Income Declaring Total Income At Rs.64,87,033/-. The Ao Noted That The Assessee Had Six (6) Residential House/Flats. According To The Ao, The Assessee Has Not Offered Any Income In Respect Of One Of These Properties As Deemed To Be Let Out Under The Head ‘Income From House Property’. The Ao Further Noted That The Assessee Is A Resident

residential house/flats. According to the AO, the assessee has not offered any income in respect of one of these properties as deemed to be let out under the head ‘Income from House Property’. The AO further noted that the assessee is a resident 2 A.Y. 2012-13 Nitin Raj Marwah ... Indian. And he was asked to explain as to why the London flat should not be considered as deemed to be let out and charged to tax under the head ‘income from house property’. After hearing the assessee, the AO was pleased to calculate