VODAFONE DIGILINK LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, NEW DELHI

gains\nof eligible business for the first five years and upto 30%\nfor the remaining five years in the ten consecutive\n assessment years out of the fifteen years starting from the\ntime the enterprise started its operation. The legislature\nhaving ousted applicability of sub-section (1) and (2) in\nthe opening sentence brought in for the purposes of time

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHIVALIK VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

Capital Gain" in the return of income. The SRA has also clarified that no consideration has been paid to the assessee against any redevelopment. Therefore, the AO while completing the assessment under section 148 did not make any addition towards the reason for which the reopening was done. However, during the assessment proceedings, the AO found that a survey Shivalik

SHIVALIK VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC 8(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

Capital Gain" in the return of income. The SRA has also clarified that no consideration has been paid to the assessee against any redevelopment. Therefore, the AO while completing the assessment under section 148 did not make any addition towards the reason for which the reopening was done. However, during the assessment proceedings, the AO found that a survey Shivalik

NATHANI PAREKH CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO (TDS) - 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

194I, section 194IC which was inserted w.e.f. 01.04.2017 is clearly applicable and that the tax ought to have been under the said section. Accordingly the AO passed the order under section 201(1) / 201(1A) of the Act for all the assessment treating the assessee as an assessee in default. Nathani Parekh Constructions Pvt. Ltd. 5. On further appeal

NATHANI PAREKH CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO (TDS) - 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

194I, section 194IC which was inserted w.e.f. 01.04.2017 is clearly applicable and that the tax ought to have been under the said section. Accordingly the AO passed the order under section 201(1) / 201(1A) of the Act for all the assessment treating the assessee as an assessee in default. Nathani Parekh Constructions Pvt. Ltd. 5. On further appeal

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 9, MUMBAI vs. M/S.ATC TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED(FORMERLY KNOWN AS VIOM NETWORKS LIMITED), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and the revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal (Jm)

Gain on deferred payment arising out of foreign currency liability It can be noticed that the expenses incurred upto the point before the asset is ready for use should be capitalized as per the Accounting Standard 10. We may also refer to Explanation 8 to sec. 43(1) of the Act, which reads as under:- “Explanation 8:- For the removal

SANDEEP CHAMPAKLAL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 31(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: SHRI. OM PRAKASH KANT (Accountant Member), MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member)

Capital Gains of Rs. 33,03,000/-. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 12,13,81,257/-on account of alleged unexplained income invested in commodities exchange u/s 69 of the Act. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the addition

ADDL CIT LTU, MUMBAI vs. BAJAJ HOLDING & INVESTMENT LTD ( FOREMERLY KNOWN AS BAJAJ AUTO LTD), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Renu Jauhri ()

194I of the Act on the lumpsum lease premium paid for acquisition of long-term lease. She submitted that vide circular CBDT categorically noted that lease premium paid for acquiring plot of land was in the nature of capital expenses and therefore the TDS was not deductible. 10.8. The Ld. DR submitted that Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case

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

gains of business and profession\"\nor\"Income from other sources\" (as the case may be).\nComputation of income from a let out property\nIncome chargeable to tax under the head \"Income from house\nproperty\" in the case of a let-out property is computed in the\nfollowing manner.\"\nParticulars\nGross Annual Value\nLess: Municipal Taxes Paid during the year\nNet

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

gains of business and profession\"\nor\"Income from other sources\" (as the case may be).\n11. The Ld.AR explained that the revenue authorities has\naccepted the method of offering of rental income for the\nA.Y.2016-17 to A.Y.2021-22, where the assessee has offered\nrental income under the income from house property and\nthe common area maintenance charges are offered under\nincome

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

gains of business and profession\"\nor\"Income from other sources\" (as the case may be).\nComputation of income from a let out property\nIncome chargeable to tax under the head \"Income from house\nproperty\" in the case of a let-out property is computed in the\nfollowing manner.”\nParticulars\nAmount\nGross Annual Value\nXXXX\nLess: Municipal Taxes Paid during

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

194I of the Act in respect of the house property income i.e rental income and whereas in respect of the amenities or services provided, TDS was deducted u/sec 194C of the Act. The Ld. AR explained that this is the first year of receipt of the rental income by the assessee and also there is a capitalization of interest

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

194I of the Act in respect of the house property income i.e rental income and whereas in respect of the amenities or services provided, TDS was deducted u/sec 194C of the Act. The Ld. AR explained that this is the first year of receipt of the rental income by the assessee and also there is a capitalization of interest

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

194I of the Act in respect of the house property income i.e rental income and whereas in respect of the amenities or services provided, TDS was deducted u/sec 194C of the Act. The Ld. AR explained that this is the first year of receipt of the rental income by the assessee and also there is a capitalization of interest

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

194I of the Act in respect of the house property income i.e rental income and whereas in respect of the amenities or services provided, TDS was deducted u/sec 194C of the Act. The Ld. AR explained that this is the first year of receipt of the rental income by the assessee and also there is a capitalization of interest

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

194I of the Act in respect of the house property income i.e rental income and whereas in respect of the amenities or services provided, TDS was deducted u/sec 194C of the Act. The Ld. AR explained that this is the first year of receipt of the rental income by the assessee and also there is a capitalization of interest

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

194I of the Act in respect of the house property income i.e rental income and whereas in respect of the amenities or services provided, TDS was deducted u/sec 194C of the Act. The Ld. AR explained that this is the first year of receipt of the rental income by the assessee and also there is a capitalization of interest

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

194I of the Act in respect of the house property income i.e rental income and whereas in respect of the amenities or services provided, TDS was deducted u/sec 194C of the Act. The Ld. AR explained that this is the first year of receipt of the rental income by the assessee and also there is a capitalization of interest