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)

section (2) of section 14A. In other words, disallowance u/s 14A(l) can only be triggered, once the conditions laid down under sub- section (2) are satisfied. To work out the disallowance under Rule 8D(2) 52 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. and for its. quantification, the Assessing Officer has to first examine the accounts of the assessee and also

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)

section (2) of section 14A. In other words, disallowance u/s 14A(l) can only be triggered, once the conditions laid down under sub- section (2) are satisfied. To work out the disallowance under Rule 8D(2) 52 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. and for its. quantification, the Assessing Officer has to first examine the accounts of the assessee and also

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)

section (2) of section 14A. In other words, disallowance u/s 14A(l) can only be triggered, once the conditions laid down under sub- section (2) are satisfied. To work out the disallowance under Rule 8D(2) 52 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. and for its. quantification, the Assessing Officer has to first examine the accounts of the assessee and also

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)

section (2) of section 14A. In other words, disallowance u/s 14A(l) can only be triggered, once the conditions laid down under sub- section (2) are satisfied. To work out the disallowance under Rule 8D(2) 52 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. and for its. quantification, the Assessing Officer has to first examine the accounts of the assessee and also

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)

section (2) of section 14A. In other words, disallowance u/s 14A(l) can only be triggered, once the conditions laid down under sub- section (2) are satisfied. To work out the disallowance under Rule 8D(2) 52 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. and for its. quantification, the Assessing Officer has to first examine the accounts of the assessee and also

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)

section (2) of section 14A. In other words, disallowance u/s 14A(l) can only be triggered, once the conditions laid down under sub- section (2) are satisfied. To work out the disallowance under Rule 8D(2) 52 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. and for its. quantification, the Assessing Officer has to first examine the accounts of the assessee and also

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)

section (2) of section 14A. In other words, disallowance u/s 14A(l) can only be triggered, once the conditions laid down under sub- section (2) are satisfied. To work out the disallowance under Rule 8D(2) 52 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. and for its. quantification, the Assessing Officer has to first examine the accounts of the assessee and also

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)

Section 54F of the Act uses a term “a residential house” which could be equivalent to word ‘any’: In his support the assessee relied upon the following judicial decisions:- i) CIT v. Smt. K.G. Rukuminiamma, (2011)196 Taxman 87 (Kar) ii) CIT v. Gita Duggal (2013)30 taxmann.com 230 (Delhi HC) iii) K.G. Vyas, 16 ITD 195(Bom-Trib

S.P CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. ACIT RG 11(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the Assessment Years

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

section 6 and 8 of the Rent Control Act. The Assessing Officer has not done any exercise to find out the rent as on the first date of October, 1987 or subsequently to fix the standard rent. As laid by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court and various other courts when the property is covered under Rent Control

ACIT 11(1), MUMBAI vs. S.P. CORPORATION, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the Assessment Years

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

section 6 and 8 of the Rent Control Act. The Assessing Officer has not done any exercise to find out the rent as on the first date of October, 1987 or subsequently to fix the standard rent. As laid by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court and various other courts when the property is covered under Rent Control

S.P. CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. A.C.I.T.RG.11(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the Assessment Years

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

section 6 and 8 of the Rent Control Act. The Assessing Officer has not done any exercise to find out the rent as on the first date of October, 1987 or subsequently to fix the standard rent. As laid by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court and various other courts when the property is covered under Rent Control

S.P. CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG 11(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the Assessment Years

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

section 6 and 8 of the Rent Control Act. The Assessing Officer has not done any exercise to find out the rent as on the first date of October, 1987 or subsequently to fix the standard rent. As laid by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court and various other courts when the property is covered under Rent Control

S.P CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. ACIT RG 11(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the Assessment Years

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

section 6 and 8 of the Rent Control Act. The Assessing Officer has not done any exercise to find out the rent as on the first date of October, 1987 or subsequently to fix the standard rent. As laid by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court and various other courts when the property is covered under Rent Control

S.P CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. ACIT RG 11(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the Assessment Years

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

section 6 and 8 of the Rent Control Act. The Assessing Officer has not done any exercise to find out the rent as on the first date of October, 1987 or subsequently to fix the standard rent. As laid by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court and various other courts when the property is covered under Rent Control

S.P. CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. A.C.I.T. RG. 11(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the Assessment Years

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

section 6 and 8 of the Rent Control Act. The Assessing Officer has not done any exercise to find out the rent as on the first date of October, 1987 or subsequently to fix the standard rent. As laid by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court and various other courts when the property is covered under Rent Control

M/S. NICHOLAS PIRAMAL INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT CUR 7(1),

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanpiramal Enterprises Ltd Vs. Acit, Circle – 7(1) (Formerly Known As Aayakar Bhavan Piramal Healthcare Ltd) Mumbai – 400020. (Before Known As Nicholas Piramal Ind) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400013. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn4538P Appellant .. Respondent Dcit, Circle – 7(1) Vs. Piramal Enterprises Ltd Aayakar Bhyavan (Formerly Known As Mumbai – 400 020. Piramal Healthcare Ltd) (Before Known As Nicholas Piramal Ind) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn4538P Assessee By : Mr.Ronak Doshi & Ms.Manshi Padhiyar.Ar Revenue By : Mr.S.N.Kabra.Dr

house property' as against assessed as income from 'other sources' ignoring the fact that the assessee was not the legal owner of the property in the relevant assessment year. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in directing that deduction u/s.80 HHC in the cases in which the provisions

ADDL CIT RG 7(1), MUMBAI vs. PIRAMAL ENTERPRISES LTD (FORMERLY KNWON AS PIRAMAL HEALTHCARE LTD) (AS ULTIMATE SUCCESSOR TO NICHOLAS PIRAMAL INDIA LTD), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Piramal Enterprises Dy. Commissioner Of Limited (Formerly Known Income Tax, As Piramal Healthcare Range-8(2)(1), Limited) (Earlier Known As Mumbai. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd.), Vs. Piramal Tower, Agastya Corporate Park, Lbs Marg, Kamani Junction, Kurla (West), Mumbai – 400 070 Pan: Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Piramal Enterprises Income Tax, Limited (Formerly Known Circle-8(2)(1), As Piramal Healthcare [Erstwhile Dcit Circle- Ltd.) (As Ultimate 7(1)], Successor To Nicholas Vs. Mumbai. Piramal India Ltd.), Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013 Pan: Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent)

house property" and to direct the Assessing Officer to grant deduction u/s.24(a). 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer in respect of deduction of Rs.24285714/- claimed u/s.35A in respect of the acquisition of the trade mark by M/s.Sarabhai Piramal