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)

2 Grand Galleria 817 sq.ft The property could not be let out as the same was under repairs during the year 3 Sky Zone 1 1,531 sq.ft This property could not be let out as the assessee could not find a competitive customer for renting out the same. The same was subsequently let out. Total 4,368 sq.ft

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)

2 Grand Galleria 817 sq.ft The property could not be let out as the same was under repairs during the year 3 Sky Zone 1 1,531 sq.ft This property could not be let out as the assessee could not find a competitive customer for renting out the same. The same was subsequently let out. Total 4,368 sq.ft

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)

2 Grand Galleria 817 sq.ft The property could not be let out as the same was under repairs during the year 3 Sky Zone 1 1,531 sq.ft This property could not be let out as the assessee could not find a competitive customer for renting out the same. The same was subsequently let out. Total 4,368 sq.ft

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)

2 Grand Galleria 817 sq.ft The property could not be let out as the same was under repairs during the year 3 Sky Zone 1 1,531 sq.ft This property could not be let out as the assessee could not find a competitive customer for renting out the same. The same was subsequently let out. Total 4,368 sq.ft

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)

2 Grand Galleria 817 sq.ft The property could not be let out as the same was under repairs during the year 3 Sky Zone 1 1,531 sq.ft This property could not be let out as the assessee could not find a competitive customer for renting out the same. The same was subsequently let out. Total 4,368 sq.ft

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)

2 Grand Galleria 817 sq.ft The property could not be let out as the same was under repairs during the year 3 Sky Zone 1 1,531 sq.ft This property could not be let out as the assessee could not find a competitive customer for renting out the same. The same was subsequently let out. Total 4,368 sq.ft

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)

2 Grand Galleria 817 sq.ft The property could not be let out as the same was under repairs during the year 3 Sky Zone 1 1,531 sq.ft This property could not be let out as the assessee could not find a competitive customer for renting out the same. The same was subsequently let out. Total 4,368 sq.ft

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

house property, capital gains and business of supply of goods and services is not exempt to the extent provided in section 10(20) of the |. T. Act. While deciding the issue the decision delivered in the case of Calcutta State Transport Corporation vs. CIT 1996 (219 ITR 515) (SC) and CIT vs. U.P. Forest Corporation

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

house property, capital gains and business of supply of goods and services is not exempt to the extent provided in section 10(20) of the |. T. Act. While deciding the issue the decision delivered in the case of Calcutta State Transport Corporation vs. CIT 1996 (219 ITR 515) (SC) and CIT vs. U.P. Forest Corporation

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

house property, capital gains and business of supply of goods and services is not exempt to the extent provided in section 10(20) of the |. T. Act. While deciding the issue the decision delivered in the case of Calcutta State Transport Corporation vs. CIT 1996 (219 ITR 515) (SC) and CIT vs. U.P. Forest Corporation

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

house property, capital gains and business of supply of goods and services is not exempt to the extent provided in section 10(20) of the |. T. Act. While deciding the issue the decision delivered in the case of Calcutta State Transport Corporation vs. CIT 1996 (219 ITR 515) (SC) and CIT vs. U.P. Forest Corporation

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

house property, capital gains and business of supply of goods and services is not exempt to the extent provided in section 10(20) of the |. T. Act. While deciding the issue the decision delivered in the case of Calcutta State Transport Corporation vs. CIT 1996 (219 ITR 515) (SC) and CIT vs. U.P. Forest Corporation

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

house properties. ii. bogus unsecured loan of ₹ 40 lakhs added under section 68 of the income tax act iii. denial of exemption under section 10 (38) of the act on account of long-term capital gain on sale of shares of ₹ 61,405,822/- 066. Addition made on account of income from property of ₹ 119,718/– is on identical facts

PRIYA MOHAN GURNANAI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

house properties. ii. bogus unsecured loan of ₹ 40 lakhs added under section 68 of the income tax act iii. denial of exemption under section 10 (38) of the act on account of long-term capital gain on sale of shares of ₹ 61,405,822/- 066. Addition made on account of income from property of ₹ 119,718/– is on identical facts

PRIYA MOHAN GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. CY CIT-CC-5(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

house properties. ii. bogus unsecured loan of ₹ 40 lakhs added under section 68 of the income tax act iii. denial of exemption under section 10 (38) of the act on account of long-term capital gain on sale of shares of ₹ 61,405,822/- 066. Addition made on account of income from property of ₹ 119,718/– is on identical facts

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

house properties. ii. bogus unsecured loan of ₹ 40 lakhs added under section 68 of the income tax act iii. denial of exemption under section 10 (38) of the act on account of long-term capital gain on sale of shares of ₹ 61,405,822/- 066. Addition made on account of income from property of ₹ 119,718/– is on identical facts

PRIYA MOHAN GURNANAI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

house properties. ii. bogus unsecured loan of ₹ 40 lakhs added under section 68 of the income tax act iii. denial of exemption under section 10 (38) of the act on account of long-term capital gain on sale of shares of ₹ 61,405,822/- 066. Addition made on account of income from property of ₹ 119,718/– is on identical facts

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

house properties. ii. bogus unsecured loan of ₹ 40 lakhs added under section 68 of the income tax act iii. denial of exemption under section 10 (38) of the act on account of long-term capital gain on sale of shares of ₹ 61,405,822/- 066. Addition made on account of income from property of ₹ 119,718/– is on identical facts