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 u/sec 194I of the Act in respect of the house property income i.e rental income and whereas in respect

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 u/sec 194I of the Act in respect of the house property income i.e rental income and whereas in respect

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 u/sec 194I of the Act in respect of the house property income i.e rental income and whereas in respect

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 u/sec 194I of the Act in respect of the house property income i.e rental income and whereas in respect

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 u/sec 194I of the Act in respect of the house property income i.e rental income and whereas in respect

SHARDA CHAMBERS PREMISE CO OP SOCIETY LTD ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, 17(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2013-14

house property income of Rs. 5,77,284/- as income from as income from other sources. During the appellate proceedings, the appellant other sources. During the appellate proceedings, the appellant other sources. During the appellate proceedings, the appellant submitted that in the original agreements entered with AIRCEL Ltd, submitted that in the original agreements entered with AIRCEL Ltd, submitted that

DCIT CEN CIR 1(2), MUMBAI vs. HIRANANDNANI PALACE GARDENS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negi

TDS certificates, C.A certificates and form 15CB . The Ld. CIT(A) has considered the detail arguments as reproduced in appellate order in para 5(a) of page No.14 onwards in the appellate order. We have also examined the explanation offered by the assessee and are of the opinion that assessee is not liable to deduct tax source as observed

RAJENDRA R. CHATURVEDI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 2(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Rajendra R. Chaturvedi, The Dcit, 4Th Floor, Shreepati Arcade, Central Circle-2(3), बनाम/ Premises No.1 & 2, Room No.803, 8Th Floor, Vs. August Kranti Marg, Old C.G.O. Annx. Bldg. Nana Chowk, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400036 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aczpc5041Q

house property" on the ground that mere splitting up of rental agreement cannot change the character of income which has to be assessed under a particular head of income. The AO further observed that as per the details furnished by the assessee, like leave & licence agreement, these two agreements are inseparable from each 7 Rajendra R. Chaturvedi other which

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

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

TDS u/sec 1941 of the Act in respect of the house property income i.e rental income and whereas in respect

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

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

TDS u/sec 1941 of the Act in respect of the house property income i.e rental income and whereas in respect

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

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

TDS u/sec 1941 of the Act in respect of the house property income i.e rental income and whereas in respect

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

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

TDS u/sec 1941 of the Act in respect of the house property income i.e rental income and whereas in respect

SKY STAR,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 22(2), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Assessment Year: 2010-11

house property". Beside this the 40 also took the view that there is transfer in this case, as per the provisions of section 2(47) and capital gain is chargeable and for that purpose the market value, superstructure is to be taken as sale consideration - CIT(A) directed the 40 to tax the income from the amenities under the head

DCIT 22(2), NAVI MUMBAI vs. SKY STAR, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Assessment Year: 2010-11

house property". Beside this the 40 also took the view that there is transfer in this case, as per the provisions of section 2(47) and capital gain is chargeable and for that purpose the market value, superstructure is to be taken as sale consideration - CIT(A) directed the 40 to tax the income from the amenities under the head

ASST CIT 27(3), NAVI MUMBAI vs. SKY STAR, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Assessment Year: 2010-11

house property". Beside this the 40 also took the view that there is transfer in this case, as per the provisions of section 2(47) and capital gain is chargeable and for that purpose the market value, superstructure is to be taken as sale consideration - CIT(A) directed the 40 to tax the income from the amenities under the head

SKYLINE PRASHASTI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 22(2)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Assessment Year: 2010-11

house property". Beside this the 40 also took the view that there is transfer in this case, as per the provisions of section 2(47) and capital gain is chargeable and for that purpose the market value, superstructure is to be taken as sale consideration - CIT(A) directed the 40 to tax the income from the amenities under the head

DCIT -CC-5(4), MUMBAI vs. RAGHULEELA ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

house property income on account of maintenance charges without Raghuleela Estate Pvt. Ltd. appreciating the fact that common area maintenance charges were part of rent agreement. ix) On the fact and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case

DCIT-CC-5(4), MUMBAI vs. RAGHULEELA ESTATES PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

house property income on account of maintenance charges without Raghuleela Estate Pvt. Ltd. appreciating the fact that common area maintenance charges were part of rent agreement. ix) On the fact and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case