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)

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act with regard to the addition 5 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. upheld by the Tribunal for less than 10% of the alleged expenses, on estimate basis. 6. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed. ITA No. 48, 49,50,51,52,241 &242/Mum/2015 7. These are appeals

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)

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act with regard to the addition 5 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. upheld by the Tribunal for less than 10% of the alleged expenses, on estimate basis. 6. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed. ITA No. 48, 49,50,51,52,241 &242/Mum/2015 7. These are appeals

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)

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act with regard to the addition 5 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. upheld by the Tribunal for less than 10% of the alleged expenses, on estimate basis. 6. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed. ITA No. 48, 49,50,51,52,241 &242/Mum/2015 7. These are appeals

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)

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act with regard to the addition 5 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. upheld by the Tribunal for less than 10% of the alleged expenses, on estimate basis. 6. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed. ITA No. 48, 49,50,51,52,241 &242/Mum/2015 7. These are appeals

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)

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act with regard to the addition 5 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. upheld by the Tribunal for less than 10% of the alleged expenses, on estimate basis. 6. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed. ITA No. 48, 49,50,51,52,241 &242/Mum/2015 7. These are appeals

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)

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act with regard to the addition 5 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. upheld by the Tribunal for less than 10% of the alleged expenses, on estimate basis. 6. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed. ITA No. 48, 49,50,51,52,241 &242/Mum/2015 7. These are appeals

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)

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act with regard to the addition 5 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. upheld by the Tribunal for less than 10% of the alleged expenses, on estimate basis. 6. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed. ITA No. 48, 49,50,51,52,241 &242/Mum/2015 7. These are appeals

M/S ARENA ENTERPRISES ,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 41(4)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for stati...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

House Property', which is not allowable. As such, provisions of uch, provisions of section 40A(2)(b) of the Act are clearly applicable in respect of section 40A(2)(b) of the Act are clearly applicable in respect of section 40A(2)(b) of the Act are clearly applicable in respect of interest payment of Rs.2,19,87,072/ interest

M/S ARENA ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD, 41(4)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for stati...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

House Property', which is not allowable. As such, provisions of uch, provisions of section 40A(2)(b) of the Act are clearly applicable in respect of section 40A(2)(b) of the Act are clearly applicable in respect of section 40A(2)(b) of the Act are clearly applicable in respect of interest payment of Rs.2,19,87,072/ interest

SUYASH HOLDING & ESTATE DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 8(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

house property. Penalty proceedings U/s. 271(1)(c) are separately initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income leading to concealment

SURINCO WORKWEAR P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(3)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1290/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 बिाम/ M/S. Surinco Workwear Ito 8(3)(2) Private Ltd., R.No. 412, 36, Marol Industrial Aayakar Bhavan, V. Estate, Mumbai 400021 M. Vasanji Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 059 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacs5694K (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Ms. Heena Sheth Revenue By: Shri. O.P Meena (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 04.02.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01.05.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 1290/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 01.11.2016 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-18/It-126/Ito-8(3)(2)/14-15, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-18, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2009-10, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Penalty Order Dated 28.03.2014 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2009- 10. I.T.A. No.1290/Mum/2017

house property despite the fact that the assessee being not owner of the said property. The explanation put forward by the assessee is bonafide which takes it out from the clutches of penalty

TRADE WINGS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 2(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result , appeal of the assessee company in ITA No

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3416/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3417/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3418/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3419/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Trade Wings Limited, Income Tax Officer – Ward बनाम/ 18/20-K, Dubash Marg, 2(3)(3), V. Fort,Mumbai – 400 023. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaact4639F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, on account of disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 1,67,426/- on account of rent from running business centers was assessed as "income from house property

TRADE WINGS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 2(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result , appeal of the assessee company in ITA No

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3416/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3417/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3418/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3419/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Trade Wings Limited, Income Tax Officer – Ward बनाम/ 18/20-K, Dubash Marg, 2(3)(3), V. Fort,Mumbai – 400 023. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaact4639F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, on account of disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 1,67,426/- on account of rent from running business centers was assessed as "income from house property

TRADE WINGS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 2(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result , appeal of the assessee company in ITA No

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3416/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3417/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3418/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3419/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Trade Wings Limited, Income Tax Officer – Ward बनाम/ 18/20-K, Dubash Marg, 2(3)(3), V. Fort,Mumbai – 400 023. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaact4639F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, on account of disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 1,67,426/- on account of rent from running business centers was assessed as "income from house property

TRADE WINGS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 2(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result , appeal of the assessee company in ITA No

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3416/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3417/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3418/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3419/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Trade Wings Limited, Income Tax Officer – Ward बनाम/ 18/20-K, Dubash Marg, 2(3)(3), V. Fort,Mumbai – 400 023. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaact4639F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, on account of disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 1,67,426/- on account of rent from running business centers was assessed as "income from house property

SUJATA HEMLAL BAKHRE,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 8(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri D Karunakara Rao & Shri Cn Prasad: (A.Y : 2010-11) Shri Sujata Hemlal Bakhre Vs. Ito Wd 8(3)(1) Flat No.302, Prangan Bldg. R.No.201, 2Nd Floor Malviya Road Aayakar Bhavan Vile Parle (E) Mk Road Mumbai – 400 057 New Marine Lines Pan : Aadpp9408J Mumbai – 400 020 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Sanjay B Vora प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से Revenue By : Shri Akhilendra Yadav सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 07/11/2016 घोषणा की तारीख Date Of Pronouncement : 03/02/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per C.N.Prasad (J.M.) : This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals)-18, Mumbai Dated 22.05.2013 For The Assessment Year 2010-11 In Sustaining The Penalty Levied Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act.

house property. In the course of penalty proceedings and in response to show cause notice issued as to why penalty

RAK CONSTRUCTION PROJECT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO 3 (3)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

house property. Further, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that in the assessment year 2012–13, penalty under section

DEEPAK KANTILAL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-19(1), MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara (Jm) & Shri Girish Agrawal (Am)

house property as self-occupied property during the year. This option can be exercised only by specifying that which property appellant wish to consider as self-occupied property. The return of income is the only document where any person can exercise his option to choose the property as self-occupied property and specified the same. As per section