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

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

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. 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

ADDL CIT R G 7(1), MUMBAI vs. NOVARTIS INDIA LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS HINDUSTAN CIBA GIEGY LTD. ), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Novartis India Limited V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income –Tax - 7(2)(2) {Earlier Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} 6Th& 7Th Floor 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Inspire Bkc M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 “G” Block, Bkc Main Road Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400051 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1) V. M/S. Novartis India Limited Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.190/Mum/2011 [Arising Out Of Ita No.6772/Mum/2010 (A.Y. 2002-03)] M/S. Novartis India Limited V. Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 143(2) proceeding and was treated as such by the assessee preclude it from urging lack of jurisdiction." (emphasis supplied) (3) There is no interplay of section 127 as held in para 8, in the following words- "8. As far as the section 127 goes, we are of the opinion that having regard to the findings rendered, that question

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD ( CORPORATE FINANCE DIVISION),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 6(3), MUMBAI

Bench: the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal preferred by the Assessee vide order, dated 18/05/2009. 4. Not being satisfied with the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A), the Assessee has preferred appeal before this Tribunal. The Revenue has also filed cross-appeal challenging the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A).

house property excluding the portions occupied by the Assessee for the purpose of business or profession can be computed. However, the Revenue has failed to point out corresponding provision providing for Assessment Years: 2006-2007 computation of depreciation and WDV of Block of Assets excluding the WDV of the asset let out during the relevant previous year. 7.8. We note

ACIT 6(3), MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

house property\nexcluding the portions occupied by the Assessee for the purpose of\nbusiness or profession can be computed. However, the Revenue has\nfailed to point out corresponding provision providing for\ncomputation of depreciation and WDV of Block of Assets excluding\nthe WDV of the asset let out during the relevant previous year.\n7. 8. We note that Section

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) ..

3. Administrative expenses allocation Direct Expenditure - It is submitted that there is no direct expenditure that has been claimed by the assessee. 12.7. Interest Expenditure Allocation - The Ld, A.O., while calculating the disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D, disallowed the proportionate interest expenditure of Rs. 33,41,551 pertaining to interest on overdraft of Rs.1,33,72,783. We would like

SHARAN HOSPITALITY P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 9(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6717/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Sharan Hospitality Private Limited Dy. Cit – Circle 9(3) बनाम/ Ground Floor, Gys Infinity, Mumbai Paranjape ‘B’, Scheme, Subhas Road, Vs. Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-57 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aagcs 8608 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. Priyanka Jain ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K. Mahondas सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 26.5.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 12.9.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 18.9.2012, Dismissing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting Its Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2009- 10 Vide Order Dated 22.12.2011. 2. The Only Issue Arising In This Appeal Is The Correct Amount At Which The Annual Value In Respect Of The Assessee’S Swami Vivekanand (S.V.) Road, Mumbai Property

3)(a). Not so doing would lead to absurd results, as in a case where the property is not let for a single day of the year, and is vacant for the whole year, so that its AV would stand to be computed taking the let-able value for the entire year, while if it is let even

M/S. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT (IT)1(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blestandard Chartered Bank V. Acit – Range-1(3) Taxation Department, 23-25 Scindia House, Ballard Estate M.G. Road, 3Rd Floor N.M. Marg, Mumbai - 400038 Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aabcs4681D (Appellant) (Respondent) Adit (It)– 2(3) V. Standard Chartered Bank Room No. 120, 1St Floor Taxation Department, 23-25 Scindia House, Ballard Estate M.G. Road, 3Rd Floor N.M. Marg, Mumbai - 400038 Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aabcs4681D (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri P.J. Pardiwala & Assessee Represented By : Shri Fenil Bhatt Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash Department Represented By :

House, Ballard Estate M.G. Road, 3rd Floor N.M. Marg, Mumbai - 400038 Fort, Mumbai - 400001 PAN: AABCS4681D (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri P.J. Pardiwala & Assessee Represented by : Shri Fenil Bhatt Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash Department Represented by : Date of Hearing : 20.07.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 27.09.2022 2 ITA NO. 803 & 850/MUM/2009 (A.Y. 1999-2000) Standard Chartered Bank

MANJU RAKESH JAIN,MUMBAI vs. PCIT, MUMBAI-20, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Manju Rakesh Jain, Pcit, Mumbai-20 704-A, Highland Park, Lokhanwala 418, 4Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Complex, Andheri West, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400058. Mumbai-400012. Pan No. Aaepj 9613 N Appellant Respondent

house property income if the same is allowable under the relevant provisions of the if the same is allowable under the relevant provisions of the if the same is allowable under the relevant provisions of the Act. In this case Act. In this case, interest income has been received from , interest income has been received from Sanyam Sanyam Sanyam Realtors

ACIT CIR 12(3), MUMBAI vs. LAKE VIEW DEVELOPERS, MUMBAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3409/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Lake View Developers Addl. Cit, Range 12(3), बनाम/ 514, Dalamal Towers, Mumbai 211 F.P.J. Marg, Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai-400 021 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafl 0589 R (Assessee) : (Revenue) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4495/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बनाम/ Addl. Cit, Range 12(3), Lake View Developers Mumbai Mumbai-400 021 Vs. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafl 0589 R (Revenue) (Assessee) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4496/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Addl. Cit, Range 12(3), Omega Associates, बनाम/ Mumbai 514, Dalamal Tower, 211-F.P.J. Marg, Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai-400 021 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafl 0589 R (Revenue) : (Assessee) : Shri Chetan Karia Revenue By Assessee By : Shri R. P. Rastogi सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 03.5.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 28.7.2016 Date Of Pronouncement

124 ITR 1 (SC). Its reference to the character of the income arising, i.e., business or otherwise – which was not in issue, also forms part of the well settled law (by it). The Apex Court, it needs to be borne in mind, referred to the ownership of the property therein in the context of the question before it. Further

THE ACIT CIR 6(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

property which forms part of the block of assets will cease to be so. Therefore, the disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 45,681 made by the AO is deleted. As a result, ground No. 4 raised in assessee‟s appeal is allowed. 30. The issue arising in ground no.5, raised in assessee‟s appeal, is pertaining to the adjustment

M/S. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR - 6(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

property which forms part of the block of assets will cease to be so. Therefore, the disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 45,681 made by the AO is deleted. As a result, ground No. 4 raised in assessee‟s appeal is allowed. 30. The issue arising in ground no.5, raised in assessee‟s appeal, is pertaining to the adjustment

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

section 36(1)(iii) as was applicable to the year under appeal, interest paid on capital borrowed for the purpose of the business should be allowed irrespective of whether it was utilised for acquiring revenue asset or capital asset. 3. The Appellant therefore prays that aforesaid disallowance of interest charges made by the AO be deleted. GROUND V: Capital Gain