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)

1) can be made only when the assessee while computing the total income, claims any expenditure which is or can be said to be attributable for earning of the exempt income i.e. income which do not form part of the total income. Such a disallowance can be made/quantified in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) of section

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)

1) can be made only when the assessee while computing the total income, claims any expenditure which is or can be said to be attributable for earning of the exempt income i.e. income which do not form part of the total income. Such a disallowance can be made/quantified in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) of section

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)

1) can be made only when the assessee while computing the total income, claims any expenditure which is or can be said to be attributable for earning of the exempt income i.e. income which do not form part of the total income. Such a disallowance can be made/quantified in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) of section

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)

1) can be made only when the assessee while computing the total income, claims any expenditure which is or can be said to be attributable for earning of the exempt income i.e. income which do not form part of the total income. Such a disallowance can be made/quantified in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) of section

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)

1) can be made only when the assessee while computing the total income, claims any expenditure which is or can be said to be attributable for earning of the exempt income i.e. income which do not form part of the total income. Such a disallowance can be made/quantified in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) of section

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)

1) can be made only when the assessee while computing the total income, claims any expenditure which is or can be said to be attributable for earning of the exempt income i.e. income which do not form part of the total income. Such a disallowance can be made/quantified in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) of section

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)

1) can be made only when the assessee while computing the total income, claims any expenditure which is or can be said to be attributable for earning of the exempt income i.e. income which do not form part of the total income. Such a disallowance can be made/quantified in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) of section

INCOME TAX OFFICER-25(3)(5), MUMBAI vs. NILIMA ABHIJIT TANNU, MUMBAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri G. Manjunatha, Am

house property for the purpose of his own residence within the specified period.. If the assessee fulfils the condition for exemption u/s.54 within the extended time of filing of return u/s. 139(4) of the Act, the assessee is entitled to exemption u/s.54 of the Act. In view of above, I came to conclusion that the appellant is entitled

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

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

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

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

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

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

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

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

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

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