ARIHANT DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -1, KALYAN

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are\ndismissed

Section 9 of the Income Tax Act.”\n23. We may observe that the decision in East India Housing (supra)\nwas considered by the Supreme Court in the decision in Chennai\nProperties & Investments Ltd. (supra) wherein the appellant\nassessee was a company incorporated under the Companies Act with\nmain objective, as contained in the Memorandum of Association, to\nacquire the properties

ARIHANT DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -1, KALYAN

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are\ndismissed

Section 9 of the Income Tax Act.”\n23. We may observe that the decision in East India Housing (supra)\nwas considered by the Supreme Court in the decision in Chennai\nProperties & Investments Ltd. (supra) wherein the appellant\nassessee was a company incorporated under the Companies Act with\nmain objective, as contained in the Memorandum of Association, to\nacquire the properties

DCIT CC 4(2), MUMBAI vs. ROCKFORT ESTATE DEVELOPERS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Cc-4(2) Vs M/S Rockfort Estate Room No. 1918, 19Th Developers Pvt Ltd Floor, Air India Bldg, 1,Leela Baug, Andheri – Nariman Point, Kurla, Mumbai – 400021. Mumbai – 400051. Pan/Gir No. : Aabcr7896K Appellant .. Respondent Co No. 72/Mum/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 4091/Mum/2019 A.Y 2014-15) M/S Rockfort Estate Vs Dcit, Cc-4(2) Developers Pvt Ltd Room No. 1918, 19Th 1, Leela Baug,Andheri Floor, Air India Bldg, – Kurla, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400051. Mumbai – 400021. Pan/Gir No. : Aabcr7896K Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Mr.Rahul Hakani.Ar Revenue By : Mr.S.N. Kabra.Dr Date Of Hearing 28.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25.04.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-52

house property and allow all statutory deductions under the said head instead of business income. 2. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance u/s 14A without considering the circular No. 5 of 2014 dated 11.02.2014 and decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case

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

142(1) of the Act along with the ITA Nos. 2246 to2251 & 2352 to 2357 /Mum/2023 M/s Island Star Mall Developers Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. questionnaire are issued. In compliance to notice, the Ld. AR of the assessee appeared from time to time and furnished the details and information. The Assessing Officer (AO) on perusal of the financial statements found that

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

142(1) of the Act along with the ITA Nos. 2246 to2251 & 2352 to 2357 /Mum/2023 M/s Island Star Mall Developers Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. questionnaire are issued. In compliance to notice, the Ld. AR of the assessee appeared from time to time and furnished the details and information. The Assessing Officer (AO) on perusal of the financial statements found that

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

142(1) of the Act along with the ITA Nos. 2246 to2251 & 2352 to 2357 /Mum/2023 M/s Island Star Mall Developers Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. questionnaire are issued. In compliance to notice, the Ld. AR of the assessee appeared from time to time and furnished the details and information. The Assessing Officer (AO) on perusal of the financial statements found that

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

142(1) of the Act along with the ITA Nos. 2246 to2251 & 2352 to 2357 /Mum/2023 M/s Island Star Mall Developers Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. questionnaire are issued. In compliance to notice, the Ld. AR of the assessee appeared from time to time and furnished the details and information. The Assessing Officer (AO) on perusal of the financial statements found that

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

142(1) of the Act along with the ITA Nos. 2246 to2251 & 2352 to 2357 /Mum/2023 M/s Island Star Mall Developers Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. questionnaire are issued. In compliance to notice, the Ld. AR of the assessee appeared from time to time and furnished the details and information. The Assessing Officer (AO) on perusal of the financial statements found that

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

142(1) of the Act along with the ITA Nos. 2246 to2251 & 2352 to 2357 /Mum/2023 M/s Island Star Mall Developers Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. questionnaire are issued. In compliance to notice, the Ld. AR of the assessee appeared from time to time and furnished the details and information. The Assessing Officer (AO) on perusal of the financial statements found that

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

142(1) of the Act along with the ITA Nos. 2246 to2251 & 2352 to 2357 /Mum/2023 M/s Island Star Mall Developers Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. questionnaire are issued. In compliance to notice, the Ld. AR of the assessee appeared from time to time and furnished the details and information. The Assessing Officer (AO) on perusal of the financial statements found that

MODERN ABODES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 12(3)(4) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blemodern Abodes Pvt. Ltd., V. Income Tax Officer – 12(3)(4) C/O. Gulabani & Co. Room No. 148, Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 506, 5Th Floor Shree Prasad House 35Th Road, Off. Linking Road Bandra (W), Mumbai - 400050 Pan: Aagcm1595B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Ms. Neelam Jadhav Shri Ashish Kumar Deharia Department Represented By :

section 23(1) of the Act and determined the rent at 10% of the value in respect of the property and accordingly additions made. In this regard, assessee filed an objection letters dated 02.09.2016 and 21.10.2016 in which assessee submitted that till the occupation certificate is obtained, hence, assessee has not received the possession of the property, therefore no deemed

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

142(1) of the Act along with the\nquestionnaire are issued. In compliance to notice, the Ld.\nAR of the assessee appeared from time to time and\nfurnished the details and information. The Assessing\nOfficer (AO) on perusal of the financial statements found\nthat the assessee company has received composite rent\nchargeable under the head income from business

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

House Property' and common area maintenance charges under 'Income from Business'. Deductions would be allowed accordingly. The Tribunal also addressed grounds related to brought forward book losses, interest expenses, and set-off of interest income on fixed deposits.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "Sec 250", "Sec 24", "Sec 143(2)", "Sec 142

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

142(1) of the Act along with the\nquestionnaire are issued. In compliance to notice, the Ld.\nAR of the assessee appeared from time to time and\nfurnished the details and information. The Assessing\nOfficer (AO) on perusal of the financial statements found\nthat the assessee company has received composite rent\nchargeable under the head income from business

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

sections": [ "Sec 24", "Sec 115JB", "Sec 143(1)", "Sec 143(3)", "Sec 142(1)", "Sec 143(2)", "Sec 194I", "Sec 194C", "Sec 56(ii)", "Sec 56(iii)", "Sec 36(1)(iii)" ], "issues": "Whether rental income from a composite agreement for letting out of premises and provision of amenities should be taxed under 'Income from House Property

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

house property' and common area maintenance charges under 'Income from business'. The AO was directed to allow deductions incurred wholly and exclusively for earning income. The appeal filed by the assessee was partly allowed, and the revenue's appeal was dismissed.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "Sec. 250 of the Income Tax Act", "Sec. 143(2) of the Income

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

142(1) of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”) were issued and served on the assessee. In response AR of the assessee attended and submitted the relevant information as called for. 3. Assessee is an individual and earned income from capital gain and Income from Other Sources. During the assessment proceedings Assessing Officer observed that assessee has sold

KANAKIA GRUHNIRMAN PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-10(1)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blekanakia Gruhnirman Pvt. Ltd., V. Dcit – 10(1)(2) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Kanakia Future City, Cts No. 101 Behind Dr. L. H. Hiranandani Hospital Mumbai - 400020 Near Ayyappa Temple, Tirandaz Powai, Mumbai – 400076 Pan: Aaack1572C (Appellant) (Respondent)

142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. In response Authorised Representative of the assessee attended and submitted the relevant information as called for. 3. The assessee is engaged in the business of construction and development of properties. During the year under consideration, Assessing Officer noticed that no real estate development activity was carried