ISLAND STAR MALL DEVELOPES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI SUBURBAN vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 6(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

140/- claimed by the assesse under income from house property. The AO on second disputed issue, found that the assessee has incurred finance cost @ 21% being Rs.4,22,00,258/-on the funds borrowed from Phoenix Mills Ltd of Rs. 60,75,00,000/- and such charging of interest is at higher side and is in not reasonable and called

ISLAND STAR MALL DEVELOPES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 6(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

140/- claimed by the assesse under income from house property. The AO on second disputed issue, found that the assessee has incurred finance cost @ 21% being Rs.4,22,00,258/-on the funds borrowed from Phoenix Mills Ltd of Rs. 60,75,00,000/- and such charging of interest is at higher side and is in not reasonable and called

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 6(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S ISLAND STAR MALL DEVELOPERS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

140/- claimed by the assesse under income from house property. The AO on second disputed issue, found that the assessee has incurred finance cost @ 21% being Rs.4,22,00,258/-on the funds borrowed from Phoenix Mills Ltd of Rs. 60,75,00,000/- and such charging of interest is at higher side and is in not reasonable and called

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 6(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S ISLAND STAR MALL DEVELOPERS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

140/- claimed by the assesse under income from house property. The AO on second disputed issue, found that the assessee has incurred finance cost @ 21% being Rs.4,22,00,258/-on the funds borrowed from Phoenix Mills Ltd of Rs. 60,75,00,000/- and such charging of interest is at higher side and is in not reasonable and called

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 6(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S ISLAND STAR MALL DEVELOPERS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

140/- claimed by the assesse under income from house property. The AO on second disputed issue, found that the assessee has incurred finance cost @ 21% being Rs.4,22,00,258/-on the funds borrowed from Phoenix Mills Ltd of Rs. 60,75,00,000/- and such charging of interest is at higher side and is in not reasonable and called

ISLAND STAR MALL DEVELOPES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI SUBURBAN vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 6(3)(1), MUMBAI

140/- claimed by the assesse under\nincome from house property. The AO on second disputed\nissue, found that the assessee has incurred finance cost @\n21% being Rs.4,22,00,258/-on the funds borrowed from\nPhoenix Mills Ltd of Rs. 60,75,00,000/- and such charging\nof interest is at higher side and is in not reasonable and\ncalled

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 6(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S ISLAND STAR MALL DEVELOPERS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the\nappeal filed by the revenue is dismissed\n35

140/- claimed by the assesse under\nincome from house property. The AO on second disputed\nissue, found that the assessee has incurred finance cost @\n21% being Rs.4,22,00,258/-on the funds borrowed from\nPhoenix Mills Ltd of Rs. 60,75,00,000/- and such charging\nof interest is at higher side and is in not reasonable and\ncalled

ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 6(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S ISLAND STAR MALL DEVELOPERS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals filed\nby the revenue are dismissed

140/- claimed by the assesse under\nincome from house property. The AO on second disputed\nissue, found that the assessee has incurred finance cost @\n21% being Rs.4,22,00,258/-on the funds borrowed from\nPhoenix Mills Ltd of Rs. 60,75,00,000/- and such charging\nof interest is at higher side and is in not reasonable and\ncalled

ISLAND STAR MALL DEVELOPES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI SUBURBAN vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 6(3)(1), MUMBAI

140/- claimed by the assesse under\nincome from house property. The AO on second disputed\nissue, found that the assessee has incurred finance cost @\n21% being Rs.4,22,00,258/-on the funds borrowed from\nPhoenix Mills Ltd of Rs. 60,75,00,000/- and such charging\nof interest is at higher side and is in not reasonable and\ncalled

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6(1)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ISLAND STAR MALL DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LTD, MUMBAI

140/- claimed by the assesse under\nincome from house property. The AO on second disputed\nissue, found that the assessee has incurred finance cost @\n21% being Rs.4,22,00,258/-on the funds borrowed from\nPhoenix Mills Ltd of Rs. 60,75,00,000/- and such charging\nof interest is at higher side and is in not reasonable and\ncalled

SARITA SUNIL MANTRI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sarita Sunil Mantri, Ito-7(2)(1), Flat 3 & 4, Kamal Building, Aayakar Bhavan, 69 Walkeshwar Road, Opp. Vs. Mumbai-400020. Gopi Birla School, Walkeshwar, Mumbai-400006. Pan No. Adxpm 8070 E Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Abhishek Jhunjhunwala, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Aditya Rai, Dr : Date Of Hearing 17/01/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 19/01/2023

140/- on estimating the fair rent on flat no. 1606 and on estimating the fair rent on flat no. 1606 and 305 @ 7% of cost of property; 305 @ 7% of cost of property; 1.1 The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that the The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that

NAVIN SURYA,WORLI, MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 42(2)(1), MUMBAI, KAUTILYA BHAVAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2018-19

140/-. The return of income filed by the . The return of income filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices under the assessee was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices under the assessee was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) were issued and complied

DCIT-CC-5(4), MUMBAI vs. RAGHULEELA ESTATES PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

section 24(b) of the Act while computing Income from House Property. He aslo relied upon and he referred to CBDT Circular No. 28 dated 20/08/1969 which clarifies that fresh loans raised to repay the earlier loans taken on the property, then the interest paid on subsequent loan shall be allowed as deduction. There is no restriction placed

DCIT-CC-5(4), MUMBAI vs. RAGHULEELA ESTATES PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

section 24(b) of the Act while computing Income from House Property. He aslo relied upon and he referred to CBDT Circular No. 28 dated 20/08/1969 which clarifies that fresh loans raised to repay the earlier loans taken on the property, then the interest paid on subsequent loan shall be allowed as deduction. There is no restriction placed

DCIT -CC-5(4), MUMBAI vs. RAGHULEELA ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

section 24(b) of the Act while computing Income from House Property. He aslo relied upon and he referred to CBDT Circular No. 28 dated 20/08/1969 which clarifies that fresh loans raised to repay the earlier loans taken on the property, then the interest paid on subsequent loan shall be allowed as deduction. There is no restriction placed

ACIT -CC- 4(2), MUMBAI vs. CHALET HOTELS LTD. (AS A SUCCESSOR TO M/S.MAGNA DISTRIBUTION & WAREHOUSING PVT. LTD.), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2505/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2507/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2510/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2511/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2513/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Acit, Central Circle-4(2) बिधम/ M/S. Chalet Hotels Ltd Room No. 1918, 19Th Floor, (As A M/S. Magna Vs. Air India Building, Nariman Distribution & Point, Mumbai-400021. Warehousing Pvt. Ltd.) Plot No. C-30 Raheja Tower, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No.Aaack0411E आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1754/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1755/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1756/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Genext Hardware & Parks बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-4(2) Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 1918, Air India Vs. Raheja Tower, Plot No. C- Building, Nariman Point, 30, Oppo. Sidbi, Bandra Mumbai-400021. Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaccg5567F

140 taxmann.com 1 (Mumbai - Trib.)[29-06-2022] and also in the case of Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. K Raheja Corporate Services Private Limited [ITA No. 2521 to 2527], held that the amendments to Section 14A introduced by the Finance Act 2022 shall apply from Assessment Year 2022-23 and onwards. Further, Hon’ble Delhi High Court

ACIT -CC -4(2), MUMBAI vs. CHALET HOTELS LTD. (AS A SUCCESSOR TO M/S. MAGNA DISTRIBUTION PVT. LTD.), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2505/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2507/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2510/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2511/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2513/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Acit, Central Circle-4(2) बिधम/ M/S. Chalet Hotels Ltd Room No. 1918, 19Th Floor, (As A M/S. Magna Vs. Air India Building, Nariman Distribution & Point, Mumbai-400021. Warehousing Pvt. Ltd.) Plot No. C-30 Raheja Tower, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No.Aaack0411E आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1754/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1755/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1756/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Genext Hardware & Parks बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-4(2) Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 1918, Air India Vs. Raheja Tower, Plot No. C- Building, Nariman Point, 30, Oppo. Sidbi, Bandra Mumbai-400021. Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaccg5567F

140 taxmann.com 1 (Mumbai - Trib.)[29-06-2022] and also in the case of Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. K Raheja Corporate Services Private Limited [ITA No. 2521 to 2527], held that the amendments to Section 14A introduced by the Finance Act 2022 shall apply from Assessment Year 2022-23 and onwards. Further, Hon’ble Delhi High Court

ACIT- CC -4(2), MUMBAI vs. CHALET HOTELS LTD. (AS A SUCCESSOR TO M/S. MAGNA DISTRIBUTION & WAREHOUSING PVT. LTD.), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2505/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2507/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2510/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2511/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2513/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Acit, Central Circle-4(2) बिधम/ M/S. Chalet Hotels Ltd Room No. 1918, 19Th Floor, (As A M/S. Magna Vs. Air India Building, Nariman Distribution & Point, Mumbai-400021. Warehousing Pvt. Ltd.) Plot No. C-30 Raheja Tower, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No.Aaack0411E आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1754/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1755/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1756/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Genext Hardware & Parks बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-4(2) Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 1918, Air India Vs. Raheja Tower, Plot No. C- Building, Nariman Point, 30, Oppo. Sidbi, Bandra Mumbai-400021. Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaccg5567F

140 taxmann.com 1 (Mumbai - Trib.)[29-06-2022] and also in the case of Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. K Raheja Corporate Services Private Limited [ITA No. 2521 to 2527], held that the amendments to Section 14A introduced by the Finance Act 2022 shall apply from Assessment Year 2022-23 and onwards. Further, Hon’ble Delhi High Court