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 – Suo motu disallowed by assessee Additional disallowance 31,38,876 Considered by AO as pertaining to House 85,29,558 38.16% of the total

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 – Suo motu disallowed by assessee Additional disallowance 31,38,876 Considered by AO as pertaining to House 85,29,558 38.16% of the total

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 – Suo motu disallowed by assessee Additional disallowance 31,38,876 Considered by AO as pertaining to House 85,29,558 38.16% of the total

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 – Suo motu disallowed by assessee Additional disallowance 31,38,876 Considered by AO as pertaining to House 85,29,558 38.16% of the total

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 – Suo motu disallowed by assessee Additional disallowance 31,38,876 Considered by AO as pertaining to House 85,29,558 38.16% of the total

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 – Suo motu disallowed by assessee Additional disallowance 31,38,876 Considered by AO as pertaining to House 85,29,558 38.16% of the total

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 – Suo motu disallowed by assessee Additional disallowance 31,38,876 Considered by AO as pertaining to House 85,29,558 38.16% of the total

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

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

property in order to take advantage of standard\ndeduction u/s 24(a) of the Act. Accordingly, he relying on above\nfacts and some judicial pronouncements, disallowed the claim of the\nassessee that rent received of Rs.2,82,16,861/-was income from House

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

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

property in order to take advantage of standard\ndeduction u/s 24(a) of the Act. Accordingly, he relying on above\nfacts and some judicial pronouncements, disallowed the claim of the\nassessee that rent received of Rs.2,82,16,861/-was income from House

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

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

property in order to take advantage of standard\ndeduction u/s 24(a) of the Act. Accordingly, he relying on above\nfacts and some judicial pronouncements, disallowed the claim of the\nassessee that rent received of Rs.2,82,16,861/-was income from House

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

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

property in order to take advantage of standard\ndeduction u/s 24(a) of the Act. Accordingly, he relying on above\nfacts and some judicial pronouncements, disallowed the claim of the\nassessee that rent received of Rs.2,82,16,861/-was income from House

JT CIT (OSD) 2(2), MUMBAI vs. THE MANJIRI STUD FARM P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

disallowance of expenditure relatable to income from house property has allowed deductions towards property maintenance expenses already disallowed by the assessee

THE MANJIRI STUD FARM P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 2(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

disallowance of expenditure relatable to income from house property has allowed deductions towards property maintenance expenses already disallowed by the assessee

DCIT CEN CIR 8(4), MUMBAI vs. PHOENIX MILLS LTD, MUMBAI

In the results, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Ramesh C Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 3991/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 3992/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 3993/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 3994/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) बिधम/ Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Phoenix Mills Ltd. Income Tax, 462, Senapati Bapat Vs. Central Circle-8(4), Marg, Lower Parel, 6Th Floor, Room No. 658, Mumbai-400013. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacp 3325 J (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

property. However, the Ld AO made an additional disallowance of Rs. 1,19,44,236. The treatment of the above expenses by the assessee himself and the subsequent disallowance made by the Ld.AO in the assessment order is as follows: Particulars Disallowance Basis Considered by assessee himself as 1,16,12,409 As discussed below pertaining to House

MRS ALKA PANDEY,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -25(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Mrs. Alka Pandey, Asst. Cit-25(2), Maitri – Plot No. 10, Jvpd Scheme, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Vs. Vile Parle (West), Bandra (East), Mumbai-400049. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Agepp 1076 H Appellant Respondent

house property and disallowing income from house property and disallowing 30% of deduction 30% of deduction u/s 24(a) on the same

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

property’ and not ‘income from business’ and hence, the provisions of Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act towards disallowance of interest does not arise as the same was disallowed by the ld. AO only due to the fact of changing the head of ‘income from house

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

House Property". ITA Nos. 2246 to2251 & 2352 to 2357 /Mum/2023 M/s Island Star Mall Developers Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. 2. Without prejudice to ground No.1, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not holding that the other expenses amounting to Rs.1,92,20,831 is required to be allowed under the head business income, which were suo-moto disallowed

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

House Property". ITA Nos. 2246 to2251 & 2352 to 2357 /Mum/2023 M/s Island Star Mall Developers Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. 2. Without prejudice to ground No.1, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not holding that the other expenses amounting to Rs.1,92,20,831 is required to be allowed under the head business income, which were suo-moto disallowed