MEENA VASWANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 26(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1983/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10)

House Rent Allowance(HRA) of Rs. 2,52,040/- received by the assessee from her employer was claimed as exempt by the assessee as per provisions of Section 10(13A) of the Act. The assessee was asked by the AO vide SCN dated 14-02-2013 as to why HRA claimed as exempt should not be added to income

ACIT 17(1), MUMBAI vs. ELVE CORPORATION, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

13A, special provision is made relating to incomes of political parties. Section 13B contains special After all this comes Chapter IV which is titled as Computation of Total Income. The heads of income classified by section 14 are salaries, income from house property

ACIT 17(1), MUMBAI vs. ELVE CORPORATION, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

13A, special provision is made relating to incomes of political parties. Section 13B contains special After all this comes Chapter IV which is titled as Computation of Total Income. The heads of income classified by section 14 are salaries, income from house property

ICICI PRUDENTIAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 6(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 384/Mum/2015 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

property of whatever description insured for any transit by land or water, or both and whether or not including warehouse risks or similar risks in addition, or as incidental to such transit, and includes any other risks customarily included among the risks insured against in marine insurance policies; Section 13(B): "miscellaneous insurance business" means the business of effecting contracts

SHILPA PRABHAKAR KULKARNI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly for stati...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Shilpa Prabhakar Kulkarni, Dcit Centralized Processing 3 Neel Sagar, 1280 Prabhadevi Centre, Seaface Prabhadevi, Vs. Bengaluru-560 500. Mumbai-400025. Pan No. Brhpk 8129 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Chandni Shah & Kinjal Patel Revenue By : Mr. A.N. Bhalekar, Dr Date Of Hearing : 03/05/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 11/05/2023 Order

section 10 (Not to be included in 6 above) in 6 above) i. Travel concession/assistance received (sec. 72784 10(5) ii. Tax Paid by employer on non-monetary 0 perquisite (sec. 10(10CC) iii. Allowance to meet expenditure incurred on 3417000 house rent [(sec. 10(13A)] iv. Other allowances 34200 2. Total Income chargeable Total Income chargeable 9993508 Schedule

HENRIETTA MARIA PEREIRA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR-17(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.1914/मुं/2023 (िन.व. 2002-2003) Henrietta Maria Pereira, B/602, Vintage Chs Ltd, Ic Colony, Borivali (West),Mumbai – 400 103 Pan: Akupp5344E ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle -17(1), Room No.117/135, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ....."ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Jitendra Singh "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Shri H.M.Bhatt सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 14/09/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 18/09/2023 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

House property and already claimed interest paid on loan as exemption. Hence, HRA is not admissible to the assessee. It is also seen that assessee has offered income from business and profession and offered Rs. 54,137/- as income of the business and profession, and deducted Rs.1,55,965/- against the gross receipt of' Rs.2,10,102/-. The assessee

ROCKLINE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO 13(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhm/S. Rockline Developers P. Ltd. Income Tax Officer-13(3)(2) 801, Hubtown Solaris Mumbai Vs. N.S. Phadke Marg, Off. Teli Gali Andheri (E), Mumbai 400069 Pan – Aaacr4467F Appellant Respondent

13A deal with the income, which do not form part of the total income. Section 14 deals with the provisions how the total income is to be computed under different heads of income, viz., ‘Salaries’, ‘Income from house property

DCIT 14.1.1, MUMBAI vs. AADI INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawaldcit – 14(1)(1), Vs. M/S.Aadi Industries Ltd 320/7, Siddhivinayak Room No. 432, 4Th Floor Housing Society, Aayakar Bhavan, Hingwals Lane, M.K.Road, Ghatkopar (East), Mumbai -400020. Mumbai – 400075. Pan/Gir No. Aaacj8256G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Appellant By Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. Dr Respondent By None सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 07.08.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 12.08.2024 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: “ The Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre(Nfac), Delhi / Cit(A) Passed U/Sec143(3) R.W.S263 U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Housing Society, Aayakar Bhavan, Hingwals Lane, M.K.Road, Ghatkopar (East), Mumbai -400020. Mumbai – 400075. PAN/GIR No. AAACJ8256G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Appellant by Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. DR Respondent by None सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing 07.08.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement 12.08.2024 ORDER PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM: “ The appeal is filed by the revenue

PUSHKAR GUPTA,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIT 26(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assesee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannushri Pushkar Gupta, 803, Sandy Flama, Distt. Flamingos, China Mill Compound, Tj Road, Sewri, Mumbai 400015 Pan:Aadpg 7500J ... Appellant Vs. The Acit , Cir.26(1) Mumbai .... Respondent

13A) amounting to Rs.l.69.680/-. 5. On facts and in law. the Ld. CIT(A) had erred in not allowing loss from House Property amounting to Rs.45.382/- without assigning any reason. Under the facts and circumstances of the matter. he ought to have allowed the loss from House Property of Rs.45.382/-. 6. On facts and in law. the learned

ACIT CIR 2(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. FINE ESTATES P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result,both the appeal filed by the Revenue and

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri. G. Manjunatha

house properties, claims to have been used for own business purpose by the assessee and also additions towards disallowance of society charges. The AO has also made adjustment to book profit computed under section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 towards disallowance of expenses under section 14A of the Act. 5. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred

FINE ESTATES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 2(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result,both the appeal filed by the Revenue and

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri. G. Manjunatha

house properties, claims to have been used for own business purpose by the assessee and also additions towards disallowance of society charges. The AO has also made adjustment to book profit computed under section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 towards disallowance of expenses under section 14A of the Act. 5. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred

SANTOSH MOHAN PATOLE,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 34(3)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

13A, Gora Kaka Kala Kaka Chawal (Subhash Nagar), Vileparle East. The said Tenancy Right was inherited by him since the death of assessee’s father in the year 1989. The said property was under the ownership of M/s. Mid City Housing Pvt. Ltd. During FY 2011-12, the said premises went for re-development. During the said period, the assessee

SHRI OM PRAKASH ADUKIA,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -7(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S Rifaur Rahman

13A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) in respect of House Rent Allowance (HRA) amounting to Rs.5,37,080/-, and doing so is wrong and contrary to the facts of the case, provisions of the Act and the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (Rules) made thereunder. 1. (b) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

SHRI OM PRAKASH ADUKIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S Rifaur Rahman

13A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) in respect of House Rent Allowance (HRA) amounting to Rs.5,37,080/-, and doing so is wrong and contrary to the facts of the case, provisions of the Act and the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (Rules) made thereunder. 1. (b) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

ACIT 13(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. MS JAYANTI K PUNJABI, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2010-11

13A. Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Akshar Builders & Developers vs. ACIT (2019) 103 taxmann.com 162 (Bombay) held that, “when assessee’s return of income was accepted by the Revenue department without any scrutiny, reopening can be initiated only when the AO has reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment

ESTATE OF LATE SHRI VRAJLAL CHANDULAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)& Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

property of the deceased was settled between the widow, the mother of deceased and his five daughters. Needless to say, the facts in our case are that the HSBC account is not part of the Estate, it devolves upon the son, Shri Anoop V Mehta and is assessed in the hands of the LR Shri Anoop V Mehta

VODAFONE INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

House of Lords in Salomon v. Salomon [1897] A.C. 22 that opened the door to the formation of a corporate group. If a "one man" corporation could be incorporated, then it would follow that one corporation could be a subsidiary of another. This legal principle is the basis of Holding Structures. It is a common practice in international law, which