BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

542 results for “house property”+ Revision u/s 263clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai542Delhi366Karnataka293Bangalore260Kolkata128Jaipur112Chennai104Ahmedabad94Chandigarh69Indore59Pune56Visakhapatnam55Cochin54Hyderabad53Raipur38Surat27Patna24Rajkot20Cuttack15Agra15Lucknow13Amritsar11Jodhpur8Nagpur7Jabalpur6Dehradun4Telangana4Varanasi2Guwahati1Allahabad1Panaji1Punjab & Haryana1Rajasthan1Ranchi1

Key Topics

Section 263207Section 143(3)168Addition to Income57Section 153A51Disallowance39Section 14A37Deduction35Revision u/s 26326Section 14723Section 11

M/S ARENA ENTERPRISES ,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, , MUMBAI-17

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 862/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Arena Enterprise V. Pcit –Mumbai-17 Cts No. 20, Arena Space, Village Majas Room No. 120, 1St Floor Jvlr, Behind Majas Depot Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C-43 Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai - 400060 G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra(E), Mumbai - 400051 Pan: Aanfa3473E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Ms. Mrugakshi Joshi Department Represented By : Shri Jagadish Jangid

Section 143(3)Section 24Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)

House Property or Business Income. B. Addition u/s, 40A(2)(b) (i) The learned CIT has erred in issuing a notice u/s. 263 which is void and without jurisdiction, seeking to revise

THE NAVYUG CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT 21, MUMBAI

Showing 1–20 of 542 · Page 1 of 28

...
22
Section 143(2)18
Section 14817

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 3655/MUM/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2004-05 Vithal Nagar Co. Operative Cit-21 Housing Society Ltd., Pratyakshkar बनाम/ 51 N.S.S. Rd No.11, Bhavan, Bkc Vs. Jia Hind Club, Jvpd Scheme, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400056 Mumbai- 400050 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaaat3055F Assessment Year: 2004-05 The Navyug Co. Operative Cit-21 Housing Society Ltd. Pratyakshkar बनाम/ Plot No. 51 Jain Hind Club Bhavan, Bkc Vs. Gldg. N.S. Rd No.11, Jai Hind Bandra (E) Society Jvpd Scheme Vile Mumbai- 400050 Parle (W) Mumbai-400049 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaaat0325L Assessment Year: 2004-05

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 50C

revisions order passed by the Ld. CIT u/s 263, the assessee had filed an appeal against the 21 Co.Op. Housing Societies aforesaid assessment order before the concerned Commissioner of Income Tax-(Appeals) wherein following grounds were taken: “(1) The Learned Assessing officer erred in taking the cost of acquisition of the common plot sold during the year

JAI HIND CO OP HSG SOC LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT 21, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 2363/MUM/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2004-05 Vithal Nagar Co. Operative Cit-21 Housing Society Ltd., Pratyakshkar बनाम/ 51 N.S.S. Rd No.11, Bhavan, Bkc Vs. Jia Hind Club, Jvpd Scheme, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400056 Mumbai- 400050 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaaat3055F Assessment Year: 2004-05 The Navyug Co. Operative Cit-21 Housing Society Ltd. Pratyakshkar बनाम/ Plot No. 51 Jain Hind Club Bhavan, Bkc Vs. Gldg. N.S. Rd No.11, Jai Hind Bandra (E) Society Jvpd Scheme Vile Mumbai- 400050 Parle (W) Mumbai-400049 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaaat0325L Assessment Year: 2004-05

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 50C

revisions order passed by the Ld. CIT u/s 263, the assessee had filed an appeal against the 21 Co.Op. Housing Societies aforesaid assessment order before the concerned Commissioner of Income Tax-(Appeals) wherein following grounds were taken: “(1) The Learned Assessing officer erred in taking the cost of acquisition of the common plot sold during the year

VITHALNAGAR CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT 21, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 3656/MUM/2014[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2016AY 1995-96

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2004-05 Vithal Nagar Co. Operative Cit-21 Housing Society Ltd., Pratyakshkar बनाम/ 51 N.S.S. Rd No.11, Bhavan, Bkc Vs. Jia Hind Club, Jvpd Scheme, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400056 Mumbai- 400050 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaaat3055F Assessment Year: 2004-05 The Navyug Co. Operative Cit-21 Housing Society Ltd. Pratyakshkar बनाम/ Plot No. 51 Jain Hind Club Bhavan, Bkc Vs. Gldg. N.S. Rd No.11, Jai Hind Bandra (E) Society Jvpd Scheme Vile Mumbai- 400050 Parle (W) Mumbai-400049 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaaat0325L Assessment Year: 2004-05

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 50C

revisions order passed by the Ld. CIT u/s 263, the assessee had filed an appeal against the 21 Co.Op. Housing Societies aforesaid assessment order before the concerned Commissioner of Income Tax-(Appeals) wherein following grounds were taken: “(1) The Learned Assessing officer erred in taking the cost of acquisition of the common plot sold during the year

THE AZAD NAGAR, COOPERATIVE HOUSING, SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT 21, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 3881/MUM/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2004-05 Vithal Nagar Co. Operative Cit-21 Housing Society Ltd., Pratyakshkar बनाम/ 51 N.S.S. Rd No.11, Bhavan, Bkc Vs. Jia Hind Club, Jvpd Scheme, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400056 Mumbai- 400050 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaaat3055F Assessment Year: 2004-05 The Navyug Co. Operative Cit-21 Housing Society Ltd. Pratyakshkar बनाम/ Plot No. 51 Jain Hind Club Bhavan, Bkc Vs. Gldg. N.S. Rd No.11, Jai Hind Bandra (E) Society Jvpd Scheme Vile Mumbai- 400050 Parle (W) Mumbai-400049 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaaat0325L Assessment Year: 2004-05

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 50C

revisions order passed by the Ld. CIT u/s 263, the assessee had filed an appeal against the 21 Co.Op. Housing Societies aforesaid assessment order before the concerned Commissioner of Income Tax-(Appeals) wherein following grounds were taken: “(1) The Learned Assessing officer erred in taking the cost of acquisition of the common plot sold during the year

SUVARNA NAGAR CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT 21, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 3658/MUM/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2004-05 Vithal Nagar Co. Operative Cit-21 Housing Society Ltd., Pratyakshkar बनाम/ 51 N.S.S. Rd No.11, Bhavan, Bkc Vs. Jia Hind Club, Jvpd Scheme, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400056 Mumbai- 400050 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaaat3055F Assessment Year: 2004-05 The Navyug Co. Operative Cit-21 Housing Society Ltd. Pratyakshkar बनाम/ Plot No. 51 Jain Hind Club Bhavan, Bkc Vs. Gldg. N.S. Rd No.11, Jai Hind Bandra (E) Society Jvpd Scheme Vile Mumbai- 400050 Parle (W) Mumbai-400049 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaaat0325L Assessment Year: 2004-05

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 50C

revisions order passed by the Ld. CIT u/s 263, the assessee had filed an appeal against the 21 Co.Op. Housing Societies aforesaid assessment order before the concerned Commissioner of Income Tax-(Appeals) wherein following grounds were taken: “(1) The Learned Assessing officer erred in taking the cost of acquisition of the common plot sold during the year

VALLABHNAGAR OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT 21, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 3659/MUM/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2004-05 Vithal Nagar Co. Operative Cit-21 Housing Society Ltd., Pratyakshkar बनाम/ 51 N.S.S. Rd No.11, Bhavan, Bkc Vs. Jia Hind Club, Jvpd Scheme, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400056 Mumbai- 400050 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaaat3055F Assessment Year: 2004-05 The Navyug Co. Operative Cit-21 Housing Society Ltd. Pratyakshkar बनाम/ Plot No. 51 Jain Hind Club Bhavan, Bkc Vs. Gldg. N.S. Rd No.11, Jai Hind Bandra (E) Society Jvpd Scheme Vile Mumbai- 400050 Parle (W) Mumbai-400049 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaaat0325L Assessment Year: 2004-05

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 50C

revisions order passed by the Ld. CIT u/s 263, the assessee had filed an appeal against the 21 Co.Op. Housing Societies aforesaid assessment order before the concerned Commissioner of Income Tax-(Appeals) wherein following grounds were taken: “(1) The Learned Assessing officer erred in taking the cost of acquisition of the common plot sold during the year

CROMPTON GREAVES LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT -6, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company in ITA no

ITA 2836/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kochar"ी शैल" कुमार यादव, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी "ी रिमत कोचर, लेखाकार सद"य के सम" । आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1994/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2836/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S Crompton Greaves बनाम/ Cit – 6,Mumbai, Ltd.,6Th Floor, C.G. House, 5Th Floor, V. Dr. A.B. Road, Worli, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 030. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacc3840K .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pradeep N. Kapasi Revenue By : Shri C.W. Angolkar सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 29-10-2015 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01-02-2016

For Respondent: Shri C.W. Angolkar
Section 143(3)Section 263

revision of orders prejudicial to revenue. The existing provisions contained in sub-section (1) of section 263 provide that if the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner considers that any order passed by the assessing officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue, he may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard

SANDEEP P. PARIKH ,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT -16, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 678/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesandeep P. Parikh Vs. Pr. Cit- 16 B-6, Anand Bhavan, Room No. 437, 4Th Bajaj Road, Vile Parle Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, (W), Mumbai – 400056 Mk Road, Mumbai – 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aajpp8447R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Pankaj Toprani.Ar Respondent By : Shri Ajay. K. Srivastava.Dr Date Of Hearing 24.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 20.04.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Principle Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit)-16, Mumbai Passed U/Sec 263 Of The Act, 1961. At The Time Of Hearing, The Ld.Ar Of The Assessee Submitted That There Is A Delay In Filing The Appeal Before The Hon’Ble Tribunal Due To Covid-19 Pandemic. The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Sandeep P. Parikh, Mumbai. Delay & We Find The Facts Mentioned In The Affidavit Are Reasonable & Acceptable. The Ld.Dr Has No Specific Objections. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal.The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri. Pankaj Toprani.ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajay. K. Srivastava.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28

revised u/s 263 of the I.T. Act merely because the AO has not discussed the allowability of expenses by him against remuneration received from the firm assessable u/s 28(v) of the Act. 9. The Principal CIT erred in law and on fact in invoking jurisdiction u/s 263 of the I.T. Act relying on certain court decisions which are distinguishable

M/S. RDC VENTURES,MUMBAI vs. PCIT-27, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1915/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S Rdc Ventures Vs. Principal Commissioner Office No.-110 Of Income Tax-27 Ridhhisidhhi Premises Room No. 401, 4 Th Floor, Society, Near Sahakar Tower No. 6, Vashi Talkies Tilak Nagar, Railway Station, Chembur (West) Mumbai- Commercial Complex, 400089 Vashi, Navi Mumbai -400703 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aakfr0914Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Dhran Gandhi Respondent By : Sanyogita Nagpal Date Of Hearing 29.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2024

For Appellant: Dhran GandhiFor Respondent: Sanyogita Nagpal
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

revision u/s 263 of the Act, as the order u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 02.03.2021 cannot be considered as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 3. The Ld. PCIT had no jurisdiction to pass order u/s 263 of the Act dated 30.03.2023. 4. The Ld. CIT, has violated principles of natural justice, by not considering

CRICKET CLUB OF INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT 1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3282/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Us:-

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

revision u/s 263: (i) whether contributions made by members and their guests, including temporary members are covered by the principles of mutuality. (ii) whether the activities of the appellant club are run so as to treat members and non-members at par in relation to provision of facilities. 3 M/s. Cricket Club of India Pvt. Ltd., (iii) whether the activities

BARCLAYS BANK PLC,MUMBAI vs. CIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-RANGE-1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 827/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 263Section 37

Properties v. Director of Income-tax [1996] 57 lTD 328 (Bombay,) wherein the Tribunal upheld the argument of the assessee that when an order is passed by the Assessing Officer pursuant to the directions of a superior authority, the same could not be the subject matter of revision under section 263 of the Act. 1.6. The appellant submits that

SURENDRA L. HIRANANDANI,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT CEN 1, MUMBAI

In the result all the appeals for A

ITA 3226/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: D.T. Garasia & Shri N. K. Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: ShriManjunatha Swamy
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 24Section 263

House Property. Also, the Hon’ble Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-I has erred in setting aside the appellant’s case back to the Ld. A.O. for making a fresh assessment of such issue. The appellant prays that the said action of Hon’ble Principal CIT be may kindly be quashed. Ground No. 5:- 4 ITA No3226-3232.M.17

RAJENDRA R. CHATURVEDI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 2(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5546/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Rajendra R. Chaturvedi, The Dcit, 4Th Floor, Shreepati Arcade, Central Circle-2(3), बनाम/ Premises No.1 & 2, Room No.803, 8Th Floor, Vs. August Kranti Marg, Old C.G.O. Annx. Bldg. Nana Chowk, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400036 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aczpc5041Q

Section 143(2)Section 24

revised its total income to Rs.4,01,87,850/-. During assessment proceedings, the ld. Assessing Officer asked explanation with respect to salary income and income from house property, capital gains and also income from other sources. During the relevant year, the assessee received Rs.3,62,10,870/- as rent from ARCIL, which was shown under the head income from house

BEE PEE TEXTILES,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT- 18 , MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 2485/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S. Bee Pee Textiles Vs. Pr. Cit – 18, 384-F, Room No. 4,5 &6 Room No. 601, 6Th Dhabholkar, Wadi, Floor, Earnest House, Kalbadevi, Mumbai – Nariman Point, 4000024. Mumbai – 400021 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaffb3061R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Mukesh Advani. Ar Respondent By : Shri Rahul Raman. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.08.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 15.11.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax– 18, Mumbai Order Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Advani. ARFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40Section 40b

House, Kalbadevi, Mumbai – Nariman Point, 4000024. Mumbai – 400021 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAFFB3061R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Shri Mukesh Advani. AR Respondent by : Shri Rahul Raman. DR Date of Hearing 18.08.2021 Date of Pronouncement 15.11.2021 आदेश / O R D E R PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JM: The assessee has filed the appeal against the order

THE INDIAN HOTELS CO. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT-1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 950/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.950/Mum/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15) बनधम/ The Indian Hotels Company Pcit-1 Room No.330, 3Rd Floor, Ltd. Vs. 9Th Floor, Express Towers, Aayakar Bhavan, Barrister Rajini Patel Marg, Maharishi Karve Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai- Mumbai-400020. 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact3957G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri K. K. Ved Revenue By: Shri Surendra Kumar (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 31.03.2021 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-01, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”] Relevant To The A.Y.2014-15 In Which The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-01 Has Invoked The Revisional Power U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “Re.: Validity Of Order U/S, 263; On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Impugned Order Dated 31 March 2021 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Act Is Without Jurisdiction & Bad In Law. Without Prejudice To The Above, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (“Pcit”) Has Erred In Passing The Order Dated 31 March 2021 U/S. 263 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri K. K. VedFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Kumar (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 263Section 36

properties is generally provided through in room television set and the advertisement / article in the Taj magazine / Coffee Table magazine kept in the rooms of overseas hotel units. - It is further submitted that in competitive industry like hospitality, apart from retaining existing customers, it is must to reach out the customers to widen its customer base in best possible manner

MORAJ BUILDING CONCEPTS PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENT. CIR -5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 265/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 1Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

u/s. 153A dated 09.12.2016 was issued and served on the assessee. In response assessee submitted the relevant information as called for. 11. During the search it was noticed assessee had various flats unsold during the year and assessee was asked to explain why the notional income should not be estimated and also Assessing Officer observed that later assessee has approached

MORAJ BUILDING CONCEPTS PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 266/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 1Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

u/s. 153A dated 09.12.2016 was issued and served on the assessee. In response assessee submitted the relevant information as called for. 11. During the search it was noticed assessee had various flats unsold during the year and assessee was asked to explain why the notional income should not be estimated and also Assessing Officer observed that later assessee has approached

MORAJ BUILDING CONCEPTS PVT LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRLE - 5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 420/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 1Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

u/s. 153A dated 09.12.2016 was issued and served on the assessee. In response assessee submitted the relevant information as called for. 11. During the search it was noticed assessee had various flats unsold during the year and assessee was asked to explain why the notional income should not be estimated and also Assessing Officer observed that later assessee has approached

MORAJ BUILDING CONCEPTS PVT.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIR -5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 263/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 1Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

u/s. 153A dated 09.12.2016 was issued and served on the assessee. In response assessee submitted the relevant information as called for. 11. During the search it was noticed assessee had various flats unsold during the year and assessee was asked to explain why the notional income should not be estimated and also Assessing Officer observed that later assessee has approached