THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

property" which houses the retail space to be let out is done by the assessee himself. All the direct and ancillary costs related to the construction were capitalized. However, no portion of the said cost was claimed as depreciation

THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

property" which houses the retail space to be let out is done by the assessee himself. All the direct and ancillary costs related to the construction were capitalized. However, no portion of the said cost was claimed as depreciation

THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

property" which houses the retail space to be let out is done by the assessee himself. All the direct and ancillary costs related to the construction were capitalized. However, no portion of the said cost was claimed as depreciation

ASST CIT CC 8(4), MUMBAI vs. PHOENIX MILLS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

property" which houses the retail space to be let out is done by the assessee himself. All the direct and ancillary costs related to the construction were capitalized. However, no portion of the said cost was claimed as depreciation

ASST CIT CC 8(4), MUMBAI vs. PHOENIX MILLS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

property" which houses the retail space to be let out is done by the assessee himself. All the direct and ancillary costs related to the construction were capitalized. However, no portion of the said cost was claimed as depreciation

THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

property" which houses the retail space to be let out is done by the assessee himself. All the direct and ancillary costs related to the construction were capitalized. However, no portion of the said cost was claimed as depreciation

THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

property" which houses the retail space to be let out is done by the assessee himself. All the direct and ancillary costs related to the construction were capitalized. However, no portion of the said cost was claimed as depreciation

THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

property" which houses the retail space to be let out is done by the assessee himself. All the direct and ancillary costs related to the construction were capitalized. However, no portion of the said cost was claimed as depreciation

ARIHANT DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -1, KALYAN

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are\ndismissed

house property, it is submitted\nthat the apprehension of the Ld. AO is factually incorrect. It is submitted\nthat the assessee has shown the actual rent received at Rs.3,87,56,614/-\nafter claiming deduction on account of Municipal Taxes, Interest on\nborrowed capital u/s 24(b),interest on Term Loan and interest paid on\nborrowed funds. Thereafter, it claimed

ARIHANT DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -1, KALYAN

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are\ndismissed

house property, it is submitted\nthat the apprehension of the Ld. AO is factually incorrect. It is submitted\nthat the assessee has shown the actual rent received at Rs.3,87,56,614/-\nafter claiming deduction on account of Municipal Taxes, Interest on\nborrowed capital u/s 24(b),interest on Term Loan and interest paid on\nborrowed funds. Thereafter, it claimed

ARIHANT DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -1 , KALYAN

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are\ndismissed

house property, it is submitted\nthat the apprehension of the Ld. AO is factually incorrect. It is submitted\nthat the assessee has shown the actual rent received at Rs.3,87,56,614/-\nafter claiming deduction on account of Municipal Taxes, Interest on\nborrowed capital u/s 24(b),interest on Term Loan and interest paid on\nborrowed funds. Thereafter, it claimed

M/S.EMCO DYESTUFF PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 12(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.703/Mum/2018 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) बिाम/ M/S. Emco Dyestuff Dcit 12(2)(1), Private Ltd. 5Th Floor, Unit No. 304, Earnest House, V. Western Edge, Nariman Point, W E Highway, Mumbai-400021 Dattapada Road, Borivali East, Mumbai-400066 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaace1167D (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Snehal R. Shah Revenue By: Shri. V.K Chaturvedi (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 10.04.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.07.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 703/Mum/2018, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 16.10.2017, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”) In Appeal Number Cit(A)-20/Dcit-12(2)(1)/It-10040/16- 17 For Assessment Year 2013-14, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated 11.03.2016 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2013-14. I.T.A. No.703/Mum/2018

house properties by assessee for its business, then there is no scope of claiming Depreciation on these house properties by invoking

EMCO DYESTUFF PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 12(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2014-15

house properties by assessee for its business, then there is no scope of claiming Depreciation on these house properties by invoking

DCIT CC 4(2), MUMBAI vs. ROCKFORT ESTATE DEVELOPERS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the Cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Cc-4(2) Vs M/S Rockfort Estate Room No. 1918, 19Th Developers Pvt Ltd Floor, Air India Bldg, 1,Leela Baug, Andheri – Nariman Point, Kurla, Mumbai – 400021. Mumbai – 400051. Pan/Gir No. : Aabcr7896K Appellant .. Respondent Co No. 72/Mum/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 4091/Mum/2019 A.Y 2014-15) M/S Rockfort Estate Vs Dcit, Cc-4(2) Developers Pvt Ltd Room No. 1918, 19Th 1, Leela Baug,Andheri Floor, Air India Bldg, – Kurla, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400051. Mumbai – 400021. Pan/Gir No. : Aabcr7896K Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Mr.Rahul Hakani.Ar Revenue By : Mr.S.N. Kabra.Dr Date Of Hearing 28.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25.04.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-52

house property’ in the facts and circumstances of the assessee’s case and hence, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) granting relief in respect of these two issues to the assessee. Accordingly, ground No.5 & 6 raised by the revenue before us are dismissed. 17. The last disputed issue, the Ld. DR submitted

DIRECTI INTERNET SOLUTIONS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 5(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

house property’ and accordingly, disallowed the claim of the depreciation of the assessee disallowed the claim of the depreciation of the assessee

DIRECTI INTERNET SOLUTIONS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 5(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

house property’ and accordingly, disallowed the claim of the depreciation of the assessee disallowed the claim of the depreciation of the assessee

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

depreciation and other expenditure were incurred in the ordinary course of the business and were allowable as business expenditure” 4. Whereas the A.O has denied the deduction u/sec24 of the Act of Rs. 4,27,79,140/- claimed by the assesse under income from house property

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

depreciation and other expenditure were incurred in the ordinary course of the business and were allowable as business expenditure” 4. Whereas the A.O has denied the deduction u/sec24 of the Act of Rs. 4,27,79,140/- claimed by the assesse under income from house property