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

ITO(E)-1(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. BHAVITHA FOUNDATION, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2021-22

houses in India for residential purposes and which is eligible for deduction purposes and which is eligible for deduction under clause (viii) of under clause (viii) of sub-section (1) of section 36;" section (1) of section 36;" It is pertinent that receipt of shares as corpus donation is in It is pertinent that receipt of shares as corpus donation

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

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

11. The ld. AR submitted that this issue is considered by the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee's own case where it has been held that “7. The issue is inter-connected with Ground 1; so the issue is covered in favour of the assesse in consolidated order dated 10/11/2022 passed by the Special Bench of ITAT, Mumbai Bench

STATE BANK OF MYSORE,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

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

11. The ld. AR submitted that this issue is considered by the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee's own case where it has been held that “7. The issue is inter-connected with Ground 1; so the issue is covered in favour of the assesse in consolidated order dated 10/11/2022 passed by the Special Bench of ITAT, Mumbai Bench

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

property located at Apeejay House by considering it as non businessproperty as no depreciation was claimed as non businessproperty as no depreciation was claimed as non businessproperty as no depreciation was claimed on the said business premises in its return of income filed on the said business premises in its return of income filed on the said business premises

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

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

11\nITA No. 3395, 3396, 3397, 3398/Mum/2024\nΑ.Υ. 2012-13, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18\nArihant Developers, Mumbai\nrental income generated in the course of the business has to be taxed as\nbusiness income and not as income from house property, it is submitted\nthat the apprehension of the Ld. AO is factually incorrect. It is submitted\nthat

OBEROI FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. CIT (E), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleoberoi Foundation V. Cit (Exemptions) Commerz, 3Rd Floor 6Th Floor, Piramal Chambers International Business Park Lalbaug, Mumbai – 400 012 Oberoi Garden City, Off. W.E. Highway Goregaon (E), Mumbai - 400063 Pan: Aaato1684L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vijay Mehta Department Represented By : Shri K.C. Salvamani

property and therefore, beyond the scope of sections 11 to 13 and provisions of sections 68 to 69C would be applicable in addition to the computation of income under these sections. We, therefore, reject the argument of learned Departmental Representative that addition under section 69 for excess 15 Oberoi Foundation investment has to be independently carried out notwithstanding exemption

DY.CIT (E) -2(1) , MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI EDUCATIONAL TRUST, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

1), Mumbai, (the learned Assessing Officer) against the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, wherein the appeal of the assessee filed against the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act dated 31st March, 2016, were partly allowed. ITA Nos. 1828 to 1831/Mum/2022 Mumbai Education Trust; A.Y. 08-09 to 11

DY.CIT (E) -2(1) , MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI EDUCATIONAL TRUST, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

1), Mumbai, (the learned Assessing Officer) against the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, wherein the appeal of the assessee filed against the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act dated 31st March, 2016, were partly allowed. ITA Nos. 1828 to 1831/Mum/2022 Mumbai Education Trust; A.Y. 08-09 to 11

DY.CIT (E) -2(1) , MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI EDUCATIONAL TRUST, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

1), Mumbai, (the learned Assessing Officer) against the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, wherein the appeal of the assessee filed against the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act dated 31st March, 2016, were partly allowed. ITA Nos. 1828 to 1831/Mum/2022 Mumbai Education Trust; A.Y. 08-09 to 11

DY.CIT (E) -2(1) , MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI EDUCATIONAL TRUST, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

1), Mumbai, (the learned Assessing Officer) against the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, wherein the appeal of the assessee filed against the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act dated 31st March, 2016, were partly allowed. ITA Nos. 1828 to 1831/Mum/2022 Mumbai Education Trust; A.Y. 08-09 to 11

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

section 23 (1) (a). Therefore, the annual value of the property would be the sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to let from year to year. The learned assessing officer has considered 5% of the cost of acquisition of the property by which the property can be expected to be let out. Assessee has not made

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

section 23 (1) (a). Therefore, the annual value of the property would be the sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to let from year to year. The learned assessing officer has considered 5% of the cost of acquisition of the property by which the property can be expected to be let out. Assessee has not made

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

section 23 (1) (a). Therefore, the annual value of the property would be the sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to let from year to year. The learned assessing officer has considered 5% of the cost of acquisition of the property by which the property can be expected to be let out. Assessee has not made

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

section 23 (1) (a). Therefore, the annual value of the property would be the sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to let from year to year. The learned assessing officer has considered 5% of the cost of acquisition of the property by which the property can be expected to be let out. Assessee has not made

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

section 23 (1) (a). Therefore, the annual value of the property would be the sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to let from year to year. The learned assessing officer has considered 5% of the cost of acquisition of the property by which the property can be expected to be let out. Assessee has not made

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

section 23 (1) (a). Therefore, the annual value of the property would be the sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to let from year to year. The learned assessing officer has considered 5% of the cost of acquisition of the property by which the property can be expected to be let out. Assessee has not made

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

section 23 (1) (a). Therefore, the annual value of the property would be the sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to let from year to year. The learned assessing officer has considered 5% of the cost of acquisition of the property by which the property can be expected to be let out. Assessee has not made