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.

415 results for “house property”+ Section 105clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi665Karnataka508Mumbai415Bangalore169Chandigarh104Chennai102Jaipur76Kolkata71Hyderabad69Cochin60Telangana53Calcutta52Ahmedabad44Indore37Raipur33Guwahati21Amritsar21Lucknow19Pune18SC15Rajkot12Cuttack11Visakhapatnam10Surat10Rajasthan9Nagpur7Patna7Varanasi5Jodhpur4Agra4Panaji3Orissa3Dehradun2Allahabad2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)53Addition to Income53Section 14A49Disallowance41Deduction26Section 145A25Penalty25Section 14818Section 14715Section 271

THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

ITA 46/MUM/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

105. We found that the said expenditures were recovered from the tenants and such recoveries were included under the CAM Charges. Thus, the expenditure is an allowable deduction and no part thereof could be apportioned against house property income. 46 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. 106. Furthermore, the said expenditure has been incurred for services rendered and all the more

THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

Showing 1–20 of 415 · Page 1 of 21

...
13
Section 143(2)13
Section 80I13

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

ITA 49/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

105. We found that the said expenditures were recovered from the tenants and such recoveries were included under the CAM Charges. Thus, the expenditure is an allowable deduction and no part thereof could be apportioned against house property income. 46 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. 106. Furthermore, the said expenditure has been incurred for services rendered and all the more

THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

ITA 48/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

105. We found that the said expenditures were recovered from the tenants and such recoveries were included under the CAM Charges. Thus, the expenditure is an allowable deduction and no part thereof could be apportioned against house property income. 46 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. 106. Furthermore, the said expenditure has been incurred for services rendered and all the more

THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

ITA 52/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

105. We found that the said expenditures were recovered from the tenants and such recoveries were included under the CAM Charges. Thus, the expenditure is an allowable deduction and no part thereof could be apportioned against house property income. 46 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. 106. Furthermore, the said expenditure has been incurred for services rendered and all the more

ASST CIT CC 8(4), MUMBAI vs. PHOENIX MILLS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

ITA 241/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

105. We found that the said expenditures were recovered from the tenants and such recoveries were included under the CAM Charges. Thus, the expenditure is an allowable deduction and no part thereof could be apportioned against house property income. 46 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. 106. Furthermore, the said expenditure has been incurred for services rendered and all the more

THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

ITA 51/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

105. We found that the said expenditures were recovered from the tenants and such recoveries were included under the CAM Charges. Thus, the expenditure is an allowable deduction and no part thereof could be apportioned against house property income. 46 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. 106. Furthermore, the said expenditure has been incurred for services rendered and all the more

THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

ITA 50/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

105. We found that the said expenditures were recovered from the tenants and such recoveries were included under the CAM Charges. Thus, the expenditure is an allowable deduction and no part thereof could be apportioned against house property income. 46 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. 106. Furthermore, the said expenditure has been incurred for services rendered and all the more

ASST CIT CC 8(4), MUMBAI vs. PHOENIX MILLS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

ITA 242/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

105. We found that the said expenditures were recovered from the tenants and such recoveries were included under the CAM Charges. Thus, the expenditure is an allowable deduction and no part thereof could be apportioned against house property income. 46 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. 106. Furthermore, the said expenditure has been incurred for services rendered and all the more

THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

ITA 47/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

105. We found that the said expenditures were recovered from the tenants and such recoveries were included under the CAM Charges. Thus, the expenditure is an allowable deduction and no part thereof could be apportioned against house property income. 46 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. 106. Furthermore, the said expenditure has been incurred for services rendered and all the more

NAHALCHAND LALOOCHAND P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA 6041/MUM/2018[1990-91]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2020AY 1990-91

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Devendra Jain - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik – Ld. DR
Section 22Section 250Section 269USection 27Section 56

section 27 (iiib) itself. It is evident that the assessee has entered into licence agreement with Bank of Baroda for letting out the ground floor of the property admeasuring 2,300 sq. ft. for a term of 12 years commencing from 1st April; 1962 and expiring on 31s1 July 1974. It is further evident after the expiry of the said

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

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

ITA 3991/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

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) ..

For Appellant: Shri Awungshi Gimson (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 23(1)(c)Section 36

house property income. For substantiating the same the relevant part of agreement reads as under. i. "Common Area Maintenance ("CAM") charge for the entire period of 36 (thirty-six) months commencing from June 1, 2008 to May 31, 2011 @ Rs.15/-(Rupees Fifteen only) per sq. ft. on built up area, amounting to Rs.35,595/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand Five Hundred

M/S.EMCO DYESTUFF PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 12(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 703/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.703/Mum/2018 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) बिाम/ M/S. Emco Dyestuff Dcit 12(2)(1), Private Ltd. 5Th Floor, Unit No. 304, Earnest House, V. Western Edge, Nariman Point, W E Highway, Mumbai-400021 Dattapada Road, Borivali East, Mumbai-400066 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaace1167D (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Snehal R. Shah Revenue By: Shri. V.K Chaturvedi (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 10.04.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.07.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 703/Mum/2018, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 16.10.2017, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”) In Appeal Number Cit(A)-20/Dcit-12(2)(1)/It-10040/16- 17 For Assessment Year 2013-14, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated 11.03.2016 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2013-14. I.T.A. No.703/Mum/2018

For Appellant: Shri. Snehal R. ShahFor Respondent: Shri. V.K Chaturvedi (DR)
Section 143(3)

105 TTJ 132(Mum-trib.). It was submitted by learned DR that assessee has brought this plea of user of two new properties for business purposes for the first time before the tribunal. 5.4 On the other hand , learned counsel for the assessee made statement before the Bench in rejoinder that assessee has put these two new properties to business

EMCO DYESTUFF PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 12(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2957/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Amit PRatap Singh, D.R
Section 131Section 35Section 35(1)(ii)

105 taxmann.com 331(Mum-trib.), wherein co-ordinate Bench of Mumbai-tribunal held as under:- "11. In the present case we find that the flats which never entered into the block of depreciable assets as income from the same were being offered under the head income from house property can by no stretch of imagination be said to be entitled

FAROOQ ABDULLA MERCHANT,MUMBAI vs. ITO 23 (1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, Ground No. V raised by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7906/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Blefarooq Abdulla Merchant V. Income Tax Officer- Ward – 23(1)(4) Matru Mandir, Tardev Road A-1401, Poseidon Tower Mumbai – 400 007 Versova, Yari Road Above Indian Bank, Versova Andheri (W), Mumbai - 400061 Pan: Ahupm7426K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vimal Punamiya Department Represented By : Smt. Vranda U. Matkarni

Section 143(2)Section 54Section 54(1)

105 taxmann.com 151 (Madras) wherein the expression “a residential house” was interpreted to mean more than one or plural residential houses. The relevant ratio of the decision is given below: “21. In our understanding, if the word 'a' as employed under Section 54 prior to its amendment and substitution by the words 'one' with effect from 01.04.2015 could not include

DCIT CEN CIR 1(2), MUMBAI vs. HIRANANDNANI PALACE GARDENS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4392/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negi

For Appellant: Shri B. Srinivas, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Chetan Karia &
Section 145A

section 145A of the I.T. Act. The AO has not assigned any cogent reason as to why the method, which has been consistently followed by assessee and accepted by the department in past as well in succeeding assessment years and which is in accordance with the : 6 : ITA Nos. 4392, 4393 & 4394/Mum/2016 recognized principles of accounting by ICAI, is being

AMIRALI AKBARALI ENGINEER,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 24(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 289/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2012-13 Amirali Akbarali Engineer, Vs Acit, A/201, Senha Apna Ghar, Ward-24(1), Unit No.11, Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Swami Samarth Nagar, Mumbai Andheri (West), Mumbai-400053 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aacpe9331N

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54F

105 ITR 43 (Guj.) (para 6), " CIT v. T.N. Aravinda Reddy [1979] 120 ITR 46/ 2 Taxman 541 (SC) (para 6), " Keshavji Raoji & Co. v. CIT [1990] 183 ITR 1/ 49 Taxman 87 (SC) (para 7) and " B.B. Sarkar v. CIT [1981] 132 ITR 150/ 7 Taxman 239 (Cal.) (para 10). 2.3. It is further noted that Hon'ble jurisdictional

SMT.MANJU MAHENDRA GOYAL,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 19(2)(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 994/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2012-13 Smt. Manju Mahendra Goyal Income Tax Officer-19(2)(3), A/802, Surya Apartments, Room No.2018, Matru बनाम/ 53, Bhulabhai Desai Road, Mandir, Tardeo Road, Vs. Mumbai-400026 Mumbai-400007 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.Aafpg2990N

Section 45Section 54

105 ITR 43, the Gujarat High Court held that no single factor including whether or not the property newly acquired by the assessee was wholly or substantially acquired by him for the purpose of his own residence after purchase or construction, as the case may be, would be determinative of the matter. Even if the new property was not substantially

ITO 16(1)(4), MUMBAI vs. SHASHANKA GHOSH, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6751/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer-16(1)(4), Vs Shri Shashanka Ghosh, Room No.438, 4Th Floor, C-701, Jay Bharat Chs Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Off. Yari Road,Near Amarnath M. K. Road, Tower, Varsova Andher (West), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400061 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Acwpg5915E

Section 54

105 ITR 43, the Gujarat High Court held that no single factor including whether or not the property newly acquired by the assessee was wholly or substantially acquired by him for the purpose of his own residence after purchase or construction, as the case may be, would be determinative of the matter. Even if the new property was not substantially

DCIT-CC-5(4), MUMBAI vs. RAGHULEELA ESTATES PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5740/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 24

house property income on account of maintenance charges without Raghuleela Estate Pvt. Ltd. appreciating the fact that common area maintenance charges were part of rent agreement. ix) On the fact and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case

DCIT-CC-5(4), MUMBAI vs. RAGHULEELA ESTATES PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5741/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 24

house property income on account of maintenance charges without Raghuleela Estate Pvt. Ltd. appreciating the fact that common area maintenance charges were part of rent agreement. ix) On the fact and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case