DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-1(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ALL INDIA GEM AND JEWELLERY DOMESTIC COUNCIL, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2015-16

House, Road), Charni Road (East), Mumbai-400026. Mumbai-400 004. PAN NO. AAFCA 3001 P Appellant Respondent : Mr. Firoz Andhyarujina Assessee by Revenue by : Mr. Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR : 01/10/2025 Date of Hearing Date of pronouncement : 24/12/2025 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the Revenue is directed against order dated 29.05.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner

SIR RATAN TATA TRUST,MUMBAI SUBURBAN vs. ADDITIONAL /JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NFAC, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in both AY 2014-15 and AY

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

House, 24, National Faceless Assessment Homi Mody Street, Fort, Centre-2(1), Vs. Mumbai-400001 MTNL Tele Building, PAN : AAATS1013P Cumballa Hills, Peddar Road, Mumbai-400026. Appellant) : Respondent) Appellant/Assessee by : Shri P. J. Pardiwala a/w Shri Sukhsagar Syal, AR Revenue/Respondent by : Shri Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 22.07.2024 Date of Pronouncement 26.08.2024 : Per Padmavathy S, AM: 1. These

SIR RATAN TATA TRUST,MUMBAI SUBURBAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in both AY 2014-15 and AY

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

House, 24, National Faceless Assessment Homi Mody Street, Fort, Centre-2(1), Vs. Mumbai-400001 MTNL Tele Building, PAN : AAATS1013P Cumballa Hills, Peddar Road, Mumbai-400026. Appellant) : Respondent) Appellant/Assessee by : Shri P. J. Pardiwala a/w Shri Sukhsagar Syal, AR Revenue/Respondent by : Shri Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 22.07.2024 Date of Pronouncement 26.08.2024 : Per Padmavathy S, AM: 1. These

SUMAN GUPTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - CC- 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2015

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Ita Nos. 3860 & 3859/Mum/2018 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Smt. Suman Gupta, Dy. Cit Cc-4(2), 6Th New Harileela House, Air India Building, 19Th Mint Road, Fort, Vs. Floor, Room No. 1918, Mumbai-400 001. Nariman Point, Mumbai-21. Pan No. Ahqpg 0220 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Bhupendra Karkhanis & Mr. Aakash Marthak & Mr. Vijay Bhatt, Ars Revenue By : Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 02/03/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 27/04/2023 Order

section (1) as if such house or houses had been let. Smt. Suman Gupta ITA Nos. 3860 & 3859/M/2018 (5) Where the property

DY..C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S STATE BANK OF MYSORE, BANGALORE

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

housing in India. On perusal of the findings of the coordinate bench in assessee's own case for earlier years on the impugned issue we notice that this issue has been allowed on the ground that the principal of consistency should be followed and that the assessee's claim from AY 2008-09 following the same methodology has not been

STATE BANK OF MYSORE,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

housing in India. On perusal of the findings of the coordinate bench in assessee's own case for earlier years on the impugned issue we notice that this issue has been allowed on the ground that the principal of consistency should be followed and that the assessee's claim from AY 2008-09 following the same methodology has not been

ILJIN ELECTRIC CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) CIR 2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz, Accoutant Member & Shri Saktijit Dey

property in goods as well as the payment, were carried on outside the Indian soil, the transaction could not have been taxed in India. (3) The principle of apportionment, wherein the territorial jurisdiction of a particular state determines its capacity to tax an event, has to be followed. (4) The fact that the contract was signed in India

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)

5 Without prejudice to Ground 1& 2 above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the allocation done by AO an amount of Rs. 14,42,894 out of Security Charges to the income from house property, ignoring the facts of this issue. The assessee prays that

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)

5 Without prejudice to Ground 1& 2 above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the allocation done by AO an amount of Rs. 14,42,894 out of Security Charges to the income from house property, ignoring the facts of this issue. The assessee prays that

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)

5 Without prejudice to Ground 1& 2 above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the allocation done by AO an amount of Rs. 14,42,894 out of Security Charges to the income from house property, ignoring the facts of this issue. The assessee prays that

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)

5 Without prejudice to Ground 1& 2 above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the allocation done by AO an amount of Rs. 14,42,894 out of Security Charges to the income from house property, ignoring the facts of this issue. The assessee prays that

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)

5 Without prejudice to Ground 1& 2 above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the allocation done by AO an amount of Rs. 14,42,894 out of Security Charges to the income from house property, ignoring the facts of this issue. The assessee prays that

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)

5 Without prejudice to Ground 1& 2 above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the allocation done by AO an amount of Rs. 14,42,894 out of Security Charges to the income from house property, ignoring the facts of this issue. The assessee prays that

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)

5 Without prejudice to Ground 1& 2 above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the allocation done by AO an amount of Rs. 14,42,894 out of Security Charges to the income from house property, ignoring the facts of this issue. The assessee prays that

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)

5 Without prejudice to Ground 1& 2 above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the allocation done by AO an amount of Rs. 14,42,894 out of Security Charges to the income from house property, ignoring the facts of this issue. The assessee prays that

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)

5 Without prejudice to Ground 1& 2 above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the allocation done by AO an amount of Rs. 14,42,894 out of Security Charges to the income from house property, ignoring the facts of this issue. The assessee prays that

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

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

5\nITA No. 3395, 3396, 3397, 3398/Mum/2024\nΑ.Υ. 2012-13, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18\nArihant Developers, Mumbai\nwhere the main object of the assessee company was to acquire properties\nand earn income by letting the same, said income was to be brought to tax as\nbusiness income and not income from house property. Accordingly, AO taxed\nthe

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

house property. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned lower authorities in assuming 5% of the cost of the investment as the annual value of the property which can be taxed under section 23 (1