ISLAND STAR MALL DEVELOPES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 6(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

TDS is deducted under the provisions of Sec.194C of the Act. The Ld.DR submitted that the assessee is solely engaged in the leasing out of the properties and the since the tenant is paying rent along with the amenities charges hence the income disclosed under the head income from house property is chargeable to tax under head income from business

ISLAND STAR MALL DEVELOPES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 6(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

TDS is deducted under the provisions of Sec.194C of the Act. The Ld.DR submitted that the assessee is solely engaged in the leasing out of the properties and the since the tenant is paying rent along with the amenities charges hence the income disclosed under the head income from house property is chargeable to tax under head income from business

ISLAND STAR MALL DEVELOPES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI SUBURBAN vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 6(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

TDS is deducted under the provisions of Sec.194C of the Act. The Ld.DR submitted that the assessee is solely engaged in the leasing out of the properties and the since the tenant is paying rent along with the amenities charges hence the income disclosed under the head income from house property is chargeable to tax under head income from business

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 6(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S ISLAND STAR MALL DEVELOPERS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

TDS is deducted under the provisions of Sec.194C of the Act. The Ld.DR submitted that the assessee is solely engaged in the leasing out of the properties and the since the tenant is paying rent along with the amenities charges hence the income disclosed under the head income from house property is chargeable to tax under head income from business

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 6(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S ISLAND STAR MALL DEVELOPERS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

TDS is deducted under the provisions of Sec.194C of the Act. The Ld.DR submitted that the assessee is solely engaged in the leasing out of the properties and the since the tenant is paying rent along with the amenities charges hence the income disclosed under the head income from house property is chargeable to tax under head income from business

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 6(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S ISLAND STAR MALL DEVELOPERS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

TDS is deducted under the provisions of Sec.194C of the Act. The Ld.DR submitted that the assessee is solely engaged in the leasing out of the properties and the since the tenant is paying rent along with the amenities charges hence the income disclosed under the head income from house property is chargeable to tax under head income from business

TODI INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 8(3)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

TDS amounting to Rs. 26,298/-.\n3. Brief facts qua the first issue, whether the composite letting\nof property is to be taxed under the head ‘income from house\nproperty' or from 'profits and gains from business

SP JAMMU UDHAMPUR HIGHWAY LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 3(3)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blesp Jammu-Udhampur Highway Pvt Ltd., V. Dcit- Circle-3(3)(2) 41/44, Shapoorji Pallonji Centre Aayakar Bhavan Minoo Desai Marg Mumbai - 400020 Colaba, Mumbai – 400005 Pan: Aaocs5512N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish Chulawala Department By : Smiti Samant

TDS and claiming depreciation as per the Act. The assessee company declared loss for the year at ₹.1,91,63,769/-. He observed that assessee has not earned any income from its normal business

ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 6(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S ISLAND STAR MALL DEVELOPERS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals filed\nby the revenue are dismissed

TDS is deducted under the\nprovisions of Sec.194C of the Act. The Ld.DR submitted\nthat the assessee is solely engaged in the leasing out of\nthe properties and the since the tenant is paying rent\nalong with the amenities charges hence the income\ndisclosed under the head income from house property is\nchargeable to tax under head income from business

AIR INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br, Accountat Member & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 4467, 4518 & 4544/Mum/2018 (A.Y: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13)

business of providing support services to various telecom operators in the field of operation & maintenance/surveillance management services for tower sites. It had made delayed payment of its statutory dues, i.e., service tax, professional tax, and TDS. The assessee claimed that the TDS paid by it was not in the nature of 'income

DCIT 5(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. AIR INDIA LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br, Accountat Member & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 4467, 4518 & 4544/Mum/2018 (A.Y: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13)

business of providing support services to various telecom operators in the field of operation & maintenance/surveillance management services for tower sites. It had made delayed payment of its statutory dues, i.e., service tax, professional tax, and TDS. The assessee claimed that the TDS paid by it was not in the nature of 'income

AIR INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br, Accountat Member & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 4467, 4518 & 4544/Mum/2018 (A.Y: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13)

business of providing support services to various telecom operators in the field of operation & maintenance/surveillance management services for tower sites. It had made delayed payment of its statutory dues, i.e., service tax, professional tax, and TDS. The assessee claimed that the TDS paid by it was not in the nature of 'income

AIR INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br, Accountat Member & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 4467, 4518 & 4544/Mum/2018 (A.Y: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13)

business of providing support services to various telecom operators in the field of operation & maintenance/surveillance management services for tower sites. It had made delayed payment of its statutory dues, i.e., service tax, professional tax, and TDS. The assessee claimed that the TDS paid by it was not in the nature of 'income

DCIT 5(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. AIR INDIA LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br, Accountat Member & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 4467, 4518 & 4544/Mum/2018 (A.Y: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13)

business of providing support services to various telecom operators in the field of operation & maintenance/surveillance management services for tower sites. It had made delayed payment of its statutory dues, i.e., service tax, professional tax, and TDS. The assessee claimed that the TDS paid by it was not in the nature of 'income

ACIT - 9(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. E-CITY PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

TDS credit, keeping total income at Rs.4,44,43,112/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act was completed on 14.03.2016, by treating income from family Entertainment Centre cum Malls as ‘Income Tax House Property’ after disallowing interest of Rs.1,73,96,877/- and Income from Other Sources of Rs.26,40,710/- against

ISLAND STAR MALL DEVELOPES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI SUBURBAN vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 6(3)(1), MUMBAI

TDS is deducted under the\nprovisions of Sec.194C of the Act. The Ld.DR submitted\nthat the assessee is solely engaged in the leasing out of\nthe properties and the since the tenant is paying rent\nalong with the amenities charges hence the income\ndisclosed under the head income from house property is\nchargeable to tax under head income from business

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6(1)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ISLAND STAR MALL DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LTD, MUMBAI

TDS is deducted under the\nprovisions of Sec.194C of the Act. The Ld.DR submitted\nthat the assessee is solely engaged in the leasing out of\nthe properties and the since the tenant is paying rent\nalong with the amenities charges hence the income\ndisclosed under the head income from house property is\nchargeable to tax under head income from business

POOJA MARKETING,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT- 31 , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Us, The Core Issues To Be Decided Are As Under:-

TDS is deducted @ 30% therefore is high demand of refund. 4.5.1. We find that the ld AO after considering the submissions filed by the assessee, passed an assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 27.12.2016, accepting the income declared in the return of income. We find that the ld AO had duly accepted to the nature of business