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

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

assessment years,( subject matter of different appeals) is derived from\nletting out various properties, and which is the business activity of the\nassessee, to earn such income, through its business, as seen from the\nmain objectives, outlined in the memorandum of association.\n21. It is hence, not the case that the business of the assessee is of a\nnature that

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

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

assessment years,( subject matter of different appeals) is derived from\nletting out various properties, and which is the business activity of the\nassessee, to earn such income, through its business, as seen from the\nmain objectives, outlined in the memorandum of association.\n21. It is hence, not the case that the business of the assessee is of a\nnature that

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)

block assessment for the A.Y‟s. under consideration. 17 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. 33. We also found that the Assessing Officer in the reasons recorded has held that while completing the assessment for A.Y. 2009-10 in the assessee's own case, it came to light that assessee has shown the rental income separately in the computation under

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)

block assessment for the A.Y‟s. under consideration. 17 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. 33. We also found that the Assessing Officer in the reasons recorded has held that while completing the assessment for A.Y. 2009-10 in the assessee's own case, it came to light that assessee has shown the rental income separately in the computation under

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)

block assessment for the A.Y‟s. under consideration. 17 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. 33. We also found that the Assessing Officer in the reasons recorded has held that while completing the assessment for A.Y. 2009-10 in the assessee's own case, it came to light that assessee has shown the rental income separately in the computation under

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)

block assessment for the A.Y‟s. under consideration. 17 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. 33. We also found that the Assessing Officer in the reasons recorded has held that while completing the assessment for A.Y. 2009-10 in the assessee's own case, it came to light that assessee has shown the rental income separately in the computation under

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)

block assessment for the A.Y‟s. under consideration. 17 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. 33. We also found that the Assessing Officer in the reasons recorded has held that while completing the assessment for A.Y. 2009-10 in the assessee's own case, it came to light that assessee has shown the rental income separately in the computation under

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)

block assessment for the A.Y‟s. under consideration. 17 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. 33. We also found that the Assessing Officer in the reasons recorded has held that while completing the assessment for A.Y. 2009-10 in the assessee's own case, it came to light that assessee has shown the rental income separately in the computation under

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)

block assessment for the A.Y‟s. under consideration. 17 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. 33. We also found that the Assessing Officer in the reasons recorded has held that while completing the assessment for A.Y. 2009-10 in the assessee's own case, it came to light that assessee has shown the rental income separately in the computation under

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)

block assessment for the A.Y‟s. under consideration. 17 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. 33. We also found that the Assessing Officer in the reasons recorded has held that while completing the assessment for A.Y. 2009-10 in the assessee's own case, it came to light that assessee has shown the rental income separately in the computation under

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)

block assessment for the A.Y‟s. under consideration. 17 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. 33. We also found that the Assessing Officer in the reasons recorded has held that while completing the assessment for A.Y. 2009-10 in the assessee's own case, it came to light that assessee has shown the rental income separately in the computation under

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 disallowed the claim of the depreciation of the assessee on the building. 3. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the finding of the On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the finding

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 disallowed the claim of the depreciation of the assessee on the building. 3. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the finding of the On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the finding

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

assessment year and one of the condition stipulated u/s 32 for grant of Depreciation on assets is its user for business purposes, which test these two house properties had failed.The claim set up by assessee is that since these two properties fall within Block

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

assessment year and one of the condition stipulated u/s 32 for grant of Depreciation on assets is its user for business purposes, which test these two house properties had failed.The claim set up by assessee is that since these two properties fall within Block

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)

Block, Bandra Kurla Mumbai- 400 051 Complex, Bandra East Mumbai – 400 098 PAN/GIR No. AAACW5273G (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Madhur Agrawal Revenue by Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT DR Date of Hearing 08/04/2025 Date of 21/05/2025 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R PER BENCH: The aforesaid appeals have been filed by the Revenue and Cross Objection by the assessee

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)

Block, Bandra Kurla Mumbai- 400 051 Complex, Bandra East Mumbai – 400 098 PAN/GIR No. AAACW5273G (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Madhur Agrawal Revenue by Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT DR Date of Hearing 08/04/2025 Date of 21/05/2025 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R PER BENCH: The aforesaid appeals have been filed by the Revenue and Cross Objection by the assessee

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)

Block, Bandra Kurla Mumbai- 400 051 Complex, Bandra East Mumbai – 400 098 PAN/GIR No. AAACW5273G (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Madhur Agrawal Revenue by Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT DR Date of Hearing 08/04/2025 Date of 21/05/2025 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R PER BENCH: The aforesaid appeals have been filed by the Revenue and Cross Objection by the assessee