M/S. HGP COMMUNITY PVT. LT D SUCESSOR TO ALPHA ASSOCIATES,MUMBAI vs. DY. C.I.T. .CENT. CIR.-1(2) , MUMBAI

In the result, the ground

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant ()And Ms Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

bogus. No fault can be found with the order dated April 30, 2010, of the Tribunal.” with the order dated April 30, 2010, of the Tribunal.” 3.3. If the aforesaid decision is analyzed with the facts of the 3.3. If the aforesaid decision is analyzed with the facts of the 3.3. If the aforesaid decision is analyzed with the facts

HGP COMMUNITY PVT.LTD SUCESSOR TO ALPHA ASSOCIATES,MUMBAI vs. DY.CIT CENT. CIR-1(2) , MUMBAI

In the result, the ground

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant ()And Ms Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

bogus. No fault can be found with the order dated April 30, 2010, of the Tribunal.” with the order dated April 30, 2010, of the Tribunal.” 3.3. If the aforesaid decision is analyzed with the facts of the 3.3. If the aforesaid decision is analyzed with the facts of the 3.3. If the aforesaid decision is analyzed with the facts

M/S HGP COMMUNITY PVT. LTD SUCESSOR TO ALPHA ASSOCIATES,MUMBAI vs. DY.CIT CENT. CIR -1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the ground

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant ()And Ms Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

bogus. No fault can be found with the order dated April 30, 2010, of the Tribunal.” with the order dated April 30, 2010, of the Tribunal.” 3.3. If the aforesaid decision is analyzed with the facts of the 3.3. If the aforesaid decision is analyzed with the facts of the 3.3. If the aforesaid decision is analyzed with the facts

HGP COMMUNITY PVT.LTD SUCESSOR TO ALPHA ASSOCIATES,MUMBAI vs. DY.C.I.T.CENTRAL CIR -1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the ground

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant ()And Ms Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

bogus. No fault can be found with the order dated April 30, 2010, of the Tribunal.” with the order dated April 30, 2010, of the Tribunal.” 3.3. If the aforesaid decision is analyzed with the facts of the 3.3. If the aforesaid decision is analyzed with the facts of the 3.3. If the aforesaid decision is analyzed with the facts

DCIT CENT. CIR-1(2) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. ALPHA ASSOCIATES, MUMBAI

In the result, the ground

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant ()And Ms Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

bogus. No fault can be found with the order dated April 30, 2010, of the Tribunal.” with the order dated April 30, 2010, of the Tribunal.” 3.3. If the aforesaid decision is analyzed with the facts of the 3.3. If the aforesaid decision is analyzed with the facts of the 3.3. If the aforesaid decision is analyzed with the facts

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)

House property. 130. We have considered rival contentions and found that during the year assessee incurred an expenditure of Rs.6,17,48,026 on account of legal and professional expenses. During the assessment proceedings, the A.O. sought details of these expenses which were furnished to the A.O. The A.O. noted that out of the said expenditure, a sum of Rs.1

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)

House property. 130. We have considered rival contentions and found that during the year assessee incurred an expenditure of Rs.6,17,48,026 on account of legal and professional expenses. During the assessment proceedings, the A.O. sought details of these expenses which were furnished to the A.O. The A.O. noted that out of the said expenditure, a sum of Rs.1

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)

House property. 130. We have considered rival contentions and found that during the year assessee incurred an expenditure of Rs.6,17,48,026 on account of legal and professional expenses. During the assessment proceedings, the A.O. sought details of these expenses which were furnished to the A.O. The A.O. noted that out of the said expenditure, a sum of Rs.1

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)

House property. 130. We have considered rival contentions and found that during the year assessee incurred an expenditure of Rs.6,17,48,026 on account of legal and professional expenses. During the assessment proceedings, the A.O. sought details of these expenses which were furnished to the A.O. The A.O. noted that out of the said expenditure, a sum of Rs.1

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)

House property. 130. We have considered rival contentions and found that during the year assessee incurred an expenditure of Rs.6,17,48,026 on account of legal and professional expenses. During the assessment proceedings, the A.O. sought details of these expenses which were furnished to the A.O. The A.O. noted that out of the said expenditure, a sum of Rs.1

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)

House property. 130. We have considered rival contentions and found that during the year assessee incurred an expenditure of Rs.6,17,48,026 on account of legal and professional expenses. During the assessment proceedings, the A.O. sought details of these expenses which were furnished to the A.O. The A.O. noted that out of the said expenditure, a sum of Rs.1

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)

House property. 130. We have considered rival contentions and found that during the year assessee incurred an expenditure of Rs.6,17,48,026 on account of legal and professional expenses. During the assessment proceedings, the A.O. sought details of these expenses which were furnished to the A.O. The A.O. noted that out of the said expenditure, a sum of Rs.1

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)

House property. 130. We have considered rival contentions and found that during the year assessee incurred an expenditure of Rs.6,17,48,026 on account of legal and professional expenses. During the assessment proceedings, the A.O. sought details of these expenses which were furnished to the A.O. The A.O. noted that out of the said expenditure, a sum of Rs.1

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)

House property. 130. We have considered rival contentions and found that during the year assessee incurred an expenditure of Rs.6,17,48,026 on account of legal and professional expenses. During the assessment proceedings, the A.O. sought details of these expenses which were furnished to the A.O. The A.O. noted that out of the said expenditure, a sum of Rs.1

HYDROAIR TECTONICS (PCD) LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 2(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Housing Development Co. vs. DCIT 49 taxmann.com 98 Dayawanti vs. CIT 390 ITR 496 CIT vs. Anil Kumar Bhatia 352 ITR 493 1.8 In view of the fact that majority of the High Courts have taken a view favouring the assessee on the issue under consideration, that view is required to be followed. Also, in case where two views prevail

RAJKUMARI SINGH,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 8, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Housing Development Co. vs. DCIT 49 taxmann.com 98 Dayawanti vs. CIT 390 ITR 496 CIT vs. Anil Kumar Bhatia 352 ITR 493 1.8 In view of the fact that majority of the High Courts have taken a view favouring the assessee on the issue under consideration, that view is required to be followed. Also, in case where two views prevail

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4) MUMBAI, PRATISHTHA BHAVAN MUMBAI vs. ASHTECH INDIA PVT LTD (E-FILING), ASHTECH HOUSE MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

bogus. In absence of . In absence of complete details provided, provided, the Assessing Officer is justified in the Assessing Officer is justified in making estimated disallowance disallowance @ 10% of total expenses on tyre of total expenses on tyre purchase. Accordingly, we uphold the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on . Accordingly, we uphold the finding

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4) MUMBAI , PRATISHTHA BHAVAN MUMBAI vs. ASHTECH INDIA PVT LTD (E-FILING), ASHTECH HOUSE

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

bogus. In absence of . In absence of complete details provided, provided, the Assessing Officer is justified in the Assessing Officer is justified in making estimated disallowance disallowance @ 10% of total expenses on tyre of total expenses on tyre purchase. Accordingly, we uphold the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on . Accordingly, we uphold the finding