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

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

142(1) of the Act were issued and served\non the assessee. In response, AR of the assessee filed the relevant information\nas called for. AR of the assessee submitted that since the assessee is into the\nbusiness of construction and development of properties, the income from\ntrading assets will not be chargeable to tax u/s.22 and thus, Section

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

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

142(1) of the Act were issued and served\non the assessee. In response, AR of the assessee filed the relevant information\nas called for. AR of the assessee submitted that since the assessee is into the\nbusiness of construction and development of properties, the income from\ntrading assets will not be chargeable to tax u/s.22 and thus, Section

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

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. During the year under consideration, the assessee earned income total amounting to Rs.57,84,37,239, which is exempt under section 10 of the Act. The assessee also incurred an amount of Rs.30,071.84 crore as interest on the borrowed funds as against receipts of Rs.41,796.64 crore

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-2(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. During the year under consideration, the assessee earned income total amounting to Rs.57,84,37,239, which is exempt under section 10 of the Act. The assessee also incurred an amount of Rs.30,071.84 crore as interest on the borrowed funds as against receipts of Rs.41,796.64 crore

SHYAM KUMAR SADASHIVAN PILLAI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE 27(3)(1), NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

house property for a consideration of Rs.91,40,000/-. The assessee's contention is that the he was under the bonafide belief that being a non- resident, there is no requirement to file the return of income. The assessee is also contending is that the notice of reopening and the notice under section 142(1

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. THE NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, MUMBAI

142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee.\nDuring the year under consideration, the assessee earned income total amounting to Rs.57,84,37,239, which is exempt under section 10 of the Act. The assessee also incurred an amount of Rs.30,071.84 crore as interest on the borrowed funds as against receipts of Rs.41,796.64 crore

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

section 37(1) of the Act. 4. The brief facts of the that the assessee company is engaged in the business of real-estate and has developed Leela Business Park at Andheri Kurla Road, Mumbai and the property was given on lease and the assessee receives lease/rental income and maintenance charges from various tenants. The assessee has filed the return

NAVBHARAT POTTERIES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CIRCLE 7(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in above\nterms

142(1) of the Act was issued and duly served upon the\nassessee. In response, the assessee has filed the reply and after\nconsidering the reply, AO made addition of Rs.40,57,200/- observing\nthat the house property income to the tune of Rs.40,57,200/- from the\n12 units which was not offered by the assessee earlier

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee.\nDuring the year under consideration, the assessee earned income total\namounting to Rs.57,84,37,239, which is exempt under section 10 of the Act.\nThe assessee also incurred an amount of Rs.30,071.84 crore as interest on\nthe borrowed funds as against receipts of Rs.41,796.64 crore

M/S. ATUL PROJECTS INDIA P LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2) (NOW JURIDICTION WITH DC CC 2(4)), MUMBAI

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

property in execution of a decree shall be applicable in its-entirety except such provision therein which may not be practicable to be applied. 16. The case of the revenue is that the expression 'so far as may be apply' indicates that it is not expected to follow the provisions of Section 142, sub-sections 2 and 3 of Section

M/S. ATUL PROJECTS INDIA PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2), ( NOW JURIDICTION WITH DC CC-2(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

property in execution of a decree shall be applicable in its-entirety except such provision therein which may not be practicable to be applied. 16. The case of the revenue is that the expression 'so far as may be apply' indicates that it is not expected to follow the provisions of Section 142, sub-sections 2 and 3 of Section

M/S. ATUL PROJECTS INDIA PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2), ( NOW JURIDICTION WITH DC CC-2(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

property in execution of a decree shall be applicable in its-entirety except such provision therein which may not be practicable to be applied. 16. The case of the revenue is that the expression 'so far as may be apply' indicates that it is not expected to follow the provisions of Section 142, sub-sections 2 and 3 of Section

M/S. ATUL PROJECTS INDIA PVT LTD.,,MIMBAI vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2), ( NOW JURIDICTION WITH DC CC-2(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

property in execution of a decree shall be applicable in its-entirety except such provision therein which may not be practicable to be applied. 16. The case of the revenue is that the expression 'so far as may be apply' indicates that it is not expected to follow the provisions of Section 142, sub-sections 2 and 3 of Section

M/S. ATUL PROJECTS INDIA PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2), ( NOW JURIDICTION WITH DC CC-2(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

property in execution of a decree shall be applicable in its-entirety except such provision therein which may not be practicable to be applied. 16. The case of the revenue is that the expression 'so far as may be apply' indicates that it is not expected to follow the provisions of Section 142, sub-sections 2 and 3 of Section

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

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

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