M/S. NICHOLAS PIRAMAL INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT CUR 7(1),

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanpiramal Enterprises Ltd Vs. Acit, Circle – 7(1) (Formerly Known As Aayakar Bhavan Piramal Healthcare Ltd) Mumbai – 400020. (Before Known As Nicholas Piramal Ind) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400013. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn4538P Appellant .. Respondent Dcit, Circle – 7(1) Vs. Piramal Enterprises Ltd Aayakar Bhyavan (Formerly Known As Mumbai – 400 020. Piramal Healthcare Ltd) (Before Known As Nicholas Piramal Ind) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn4538P Assessee By : Mr.Ronak Doshi & Ms.Manshi Padhiyar.Ar Revenue By : Mr.S.N.Kabra.Dr

House Property, since the assessee company is not the owner of the said properties during the financial year 2003-04. Further, the assessee company is also not in the business of letting out of premises. Hence, the rental receipts can also not be taxed under the head Business Income. Such rental receipts can only be taxed under the head "Income

SAMEER KISHORE KOTICHA,MUMBAI vs. DY.COMM OF INCOME TAX 6(1) (2) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Gagan Goyal

house property’ amounting to Rs.1,08,81,242, was denied. 5. Separately, vide application dated 28/11/2017, filed under section 154 of the Act, the assessee sought rectification of intimation issued under section 143(1) of the Act on the basis that interest under section 24(b) of the Act was allowed only to the extent of Rs.2 lakh, however

KANAKA LANDMARK HOLIDAYS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 6(3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Choudhry & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Kanaka Landmark Ito Ward 6(3)(4) Holidays Private Limited Aayakar Bhawan, Flat No. 16, Mumbai. Suryodaya Building, Vs. Sion S.O. , Mumbai- 400022. Pan: Aaeck3352J (Appellant) (Respondent)

house property which included rental income as evidenced in Income Tax Return Form. 4. To rectify the mistake in the intimation order, the assessee filed the rectification request on 10/01/2020 and has received rectification order u/s. 154

VIPUL VASANT PATIL,INDIA vs. CPC, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CENTRALIZED PROCESSING SYSTEM OF INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

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: 2018-19 Vipul Vasant Patil, The Asst. Director Of Heramb Kophrad Income-Tax, Centralized Umbergothan, Agashi, Vs. Processing Centre, Income Virar (W) Tax Department, Palghar-401 301. Bengaluru-560 500. Pan No. Apjpp 7462 H Appellant Respondent : Mr. Abdulkadir Jamsadwala Assessee By Revenue By : Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Dr

house property and other sources. The assessee al and other sources. The assessee also earned salary income and so earned salary income and other income in Singapore for the perio other income in Singapore for the period from 01.12.2017 to d from 01.12.2017 to 31.03.2018 from Unilever ltd 31.03.2018 from Unilever ltd, on which tax was deducted in foreign

D.S.K. MADHUBAN (WING A&B) CO-OP HOUSING SOCIETY LID,MUMBAI vs. ITO 41(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain

property tax debited to profit and loss account, but not paid till the due date of filing of return. It was further contended that since the assessee is a cooperative society and neither has any business nor has any business income. Therefore, all the income and expenses are DSK Madhuban (Wing A&B) Co-Op Housing Society, Mumbai solely

D.S.K. MADHUBAN (WING A&B ) CO -OP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 41(1)(1) , MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain

property tax debited to profit and loss account, but not paid till the due date of filing of return. It was further contended that since the assessee is a cooperative society and neither has any business nor has any business income. Therefore, all the income and expenses are DSK Madhuban (Wing A&B) Co-Op Housing Society, Mumbai solely

GOBINDRAM JAGDISH KAKWANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO INTERNATIONAL TAXATION WARD 3(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Blegobindram Jagdish Kakwani Vs. Ito (It)- Ward 3(1)(1) C/O Gulabani & Co. Ca, Air India Building 507, 5Th Floor, Shree Prasad House Nariman Point 35Th Road, Off Linking Road Mumbai-400021 Bandra (West), Mumbai- 400050 Pan: Awopk5474C (Appellant) (Respondent)

house property” and “income from other sources”. 4. As per the reasons for reopening, during Financial Year 2010-11, assessee had sold the property bearing No. 5 in building No. 144 and bearing No. 155, Indian Complex Gundavli, Tal. Bhiwandi vide agreement dated 31.01.2011 for sale consideration of ₹.52,50,000/-. In this regard assessee was asked to file

DHEERAJ TOLARAM TALREJA,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2020-21 Mr. Dheeraj Tolaram Income Tax Officer, Talreja International Taxation, A – 605, Ward 4(1)(1) Oberoi Esquire, Air India Building, Oberoi Garden City, Nariman Point, Vs. Goregaon East, Mumbai- 400021. Mumbai- 400063. Pan: Adopt3185J (Appellant) (Respondent)

rectification request was rejected by the CPC and the order u/s. 154 of the Act was issued to the appellant on 02/06/2022. While the claim of foreign tax credit as per section 90 of the Act was not disallowed, additionally, the loss under the head ‘house property

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. PATEL ENGINEERING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble

property of any kind has passed to the assessee in respect of development of the infrastructure facility. It means that the assessee has not fulfilled the requirements as held by Hon'ble Bombay High Court to get deduction u/s 80 IA. The essential components are completely missing in the agreements on which basis the enterprise can be eligible for deduction

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. PATEL ENGINEERING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble

property of any kind has passed to the assessee in respect of development of the infrastructure facility. It means that the assessee has not fulfilled the requirements as held by Hon'ble Bombay High Court to get deduction u/s 80 IA. The essential components are completely missing in the agreements on which basis the enterprise can be eligible for deduction

TOLANI SHIPPING CO. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT,CIR-5(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal by the assessee for A

property amounting to Rs. 11,91,92,670/- cannot be considered for disallowance under the provision of 14A. That the same generate taxable income. He held that this assertion of the assessee needs verification. Therefore he directed the Assessing Officer to verify this fact and compute disallowance u/s. 14A @ 0.5% of the average value of investment. 6. Against this order

ANIL BHAGWAN ADVANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO (IT) 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

House, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400038. ..... Appellant Vs. Anil Bhagwan Advani, 6/64 Shyam Niwas, Warden Road, Mumbai-400026 PAN: ADPPA6266J ...... Respondent Appellant/Assessee by : Sh. Tapas Misra Respondent/Revenue by : Smt. Shailja Rai, CIT-DR Date of hearing : 31/05/2022 Date of pronouncement : 28/07/2022 PER GAGAN GOYAL, A.M: These three appeals by the assessee and Revenue are directed against the order of Commissioner

MADHABI PURI BUCH,MUMBAI vs. CIT (APPEALS) 55, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

House Property” in respect of above said property. Accordingly, the AO passed a rectification order u/s 154 of the Act assessing

ASST CIT CEN CIR 29, MUMBAI vs. SHAH RUKH KHAN, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri N.K.Pradhan, Am Dy. Commissoner Of Income-Tax, Shri Shah Rukh Khan Central Circle-4(2), Mumbai 44-Mannat, B.J. Road, Band बिधम/ (Erstwhile Assistant Commissioner Of Income Stand, Bandra (West), Tax, Central Circle-29, Mumbai) Mumbai-400 050. Vs. R. No. 1918, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aahpk3293L (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act on account of long term capital gain offered by the assessee on structured product assessee does not violate the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Petroproducts P. Ltd 2010 322 ITR 158 SC wherein it has been clearly held that everything would

MORYA HOUSE MAKERS,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 39, MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

property named 'Morya Apartment' was at Rs.1,75,00,000/- in place of Rs.1,00,00,000/- shown by the assessee. When it was confronted during the assessment proceedings, the assessee has admitted that the actual sale consideration was at Rs.1,75,00,000/- and Rs.75,00,000/- was received in cash which was not accounted for. However

ASST CIT 16(2), MUMBAI vs. JANAK DILIP DWARKADAS, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri G Manjunatha () Acit-16(2), Mumbai Vs Shri Janak Dilip Dwarkadas 3Rd Floor, Mulla House 51, M.G. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Pan : Aaepd8303R Appellant Respondednt

house property’. The AO also made addition /disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D of Rs.87,61,355 being 0.5% of average value of investment u/r 8D(2)(iiii). The assessee filed an application u/s 154 seeking rectification

MANJI K. PATEL,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 5(2)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

rectification of mistake u/s 154 against intimation u/s 143(1) vide letter dated 04/04/2014 as also against the order u/s 143(3) vide letter dated 24/03/2014. However, the AO vide the impugned order dated 11/04/2014 has refused to rectify the mistake. 12. By the impugned order, CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO by observing as under

DOSTI REALTY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO, CIRCLE 1(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am Dosti Realty Limited The Dy. Cit, Circle 1(1)(1) 276, 1St Floor, Lawrence & Mayo Room No. 533, 5Th Floor, House, Dr. D. N. Road, Fort, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai – 400 001 Mumbai-400 020

House, Dr. D. N. Road, Fort, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai – 400 001 Mumbai-400 020 PAN/GIR No. AACCD 7714 K (Appellant) (Respondent) : Appellant by : Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Adv. & Shri Rahul Hakani Respondent by : Shri R. R. Makwana Date of Hearing : 13.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 16.01.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey, VP: This