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)

house property. Even as per the contract the assessee used to recovers the same as well from all its tenants as Amenities charges, which-is offered to tax under the head Service Charges and accordingly such expenses can also not be allocated to earning of rental income. 109. In addition to the above, after going through the entire terms

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)

house property. Even as per the contract the assessee used to recovers the same as well from all its tenants as Amenities charges, which-is offered to tax under the head Service Charges and accordingly such expenses can also not be allocated to earning of rental income. 109. In addition to the above, after going through the entire terms

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)

house property. Even as per the contract the assessee used to recovers the same as well from all its tenants as Amenities charges, which-is offered to tax under the head Service Charges and accordingly such expenses can also not be allocated to earning of rental income. 109. In addition to the above, after going through the entire terms

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)

house property. Even as per the contract the assessee used to recovers the same as well from all its tenants as Amenities charges, which-is offered to tax under the head Service Charges and accordingly such expenses can also not be allocated to earning of rental income. 109. In addition to the above, after going through the entire terms

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)

house property. Even as per the contract the assessee used to recovers the same as well from all its tenants as Amenities charges, which-is offered to tax under the head Service Charges and accordingly such expenses can also not be allocated to earning of rental income. 109. In addition to the above, after going through the entire terms

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)

house property. Even as per the contract the assessee used to recovers the same as well from all its tenants as Amenities charges, which-is offered to tax under the head Service Charges and accordingly such expenses can also not be allocated to earning of rental income. 109. In addition to the above, after going through the entire terms

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)

house property. Even as per the contract the assessee used to recovers the same as well from all its tenants as Amenities charges, which-is offered to tax under the head Service Charges and accordingly such expenses can also not be allocated to earning of rental income. 109. In addition to the above, after going through the entire terms

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

109,174,422/–. 011. For assessment year 2015 – 16, learned AO found that a) Assessee is owner of six properties for which assessee has not offered income from property. The assessee was found to be owner of [1] 501/601 Crosica plot for which the deemed rent as per property tax bill was estimated at ₹ 16,878, [2] for property

MOHAN THANKURDAS 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

109,174,422/–. 011. For assessment year 2015 – 16, learned AO found that a) Assessee is owner of six properties for which assessee has not offered income from property. The assessee was found to be owner of [1] 501/601 Crosica plot for which the deemed rent as per property tax bill was estimated at ₹ 16,878, [2] for property

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

109,174,422/–. 011. For assessment year 2015 – 16, learned AO found that a) Assessee is owner of six properties for which assessee has not offered income from property. The assessee was found to be owner of [1] 501/601 Crosica plot for which the deemed rent as per property tax bill was estimated at ₹ 16,878, [2] for property

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

109,174,422/–. 011. For assessment year 2015 – 16, learned AO found that a) Assessee is owner of six properties for which assessee has not offered income from property. The assessee was found to be owner of [1] 501/601 Crosica plot for which the deemed rent as per property tax bill was estimated at ₹ 16,878, [2] for property

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

109,174,422/–. 011. For assessment year 2015 – 16, learned AO found that a) Assessee is owner of six properties for which assessee has not offered income from property. The assessee was found to be owner of [1] 501/601 Crosica plot for which the deemed rent as per property tax bill was estimated at ₹ 16,878, [2] for property

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

109,174,422/–. 011. For assessment year 2015 – 16, learned AO found that a) Assessee is owner of six properties for which assessee has not offered income from property. The assessee was found to be owner of [1] 501/601 Crosica plot for which the deemed rent as per property tax bill was estimated at ₹ 16,878, [2] for property

MOHAN GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRLE - 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

109,174,422/–. 011. For assessment year 2015 – 16, learned AO found that a) Assessee is owner of six properties for which assessee has not offered income from property. The assessee was found to be owner of [1] 501/601 Crosica plot for which the deemed rent as per property tax bill was estimated at ₹ 16,878, [2] for property

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

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

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) ..

109 as Security charges. The security charges also 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. For substantiating the same the relevant part of agreement reads as under. i. "Common Area Maintenance ("CAM") charge for the entire

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

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

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

house' and, accordingly, assessee was entitled to benefit conferred under section 54(1) - Held, yes" Ground No. 2 Disallowance of ₹.13,00,000/- being the litigation expenses incurred in respect of the sale of disputed property  On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the CIT(A) erred in disallowing

VISHAL DUTT,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 22(3)(4), NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA N0

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 878/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) Vishal Dutt, बनाम/ Income Tax Officer, Ward 205, B-Wing, Big Splash, – 22(3)(4), V. Sector – 17,Vashi, 3 Rd Floor, Tower No. 6, Navi Mumbai – 400703. Vashi Railway Station, Navi Mumbai – 400 703. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aagpd 1553 M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

house constructed at Parsik Hill Property on the contention that the said property was not in a habitable condition. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) was not justified and grossly erred in confirming the action of the A.O. in assessing the agricultural income earned by the appellant amounting

TODI INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 8(3)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

house property however, in relevant\n assessment year it has claimed rental income as business income\nin view of the object as set out in clause 4 of the memorandum\nThough before the Tribunal the Memorandum was relied on to put\nforward the case that the income was part of the business and\npayment of compensation was to earn higher