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.,,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

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD ( CORPORATE FINANCE DIVISION),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 6(3), MUMBAI

Bench: the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal preferred by the Assessee vide order, dated 18/05/2009. 4. Not being satisfied with the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A), the Assessee has preferred appeal before this Tribunal. The Revenue has also filed cross-appeal challenging the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A).

house property excluding the portions occupied by the Assessee for the purpose of business or profession can be computed. However, the Revenue has failed to point out corresponding provision providing for Assessment Years: 2006-2007 computation of depreciation and WDV of Block of Assets excluding the WDV of the asset let out during the relevant previous year. 7.8. We note

MADHU B KHATRI,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 32 (2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s claim of deduction is allowed

Bench: Confirming The Sale Consideration Determined By Ld. Ao On Adopting The Market Value Of 2 Residential Flats, Ought To Have Considered The Understated Facts, Being;

property purchased by assessee out of sale proceeds should be of residential nature and fact that residential house consisted of several independent units could not be an impediment for granting relief under said section, even if such independent units were situated side by side, on different floors or were purchased under separate sale deeds - Held, yes [Para 10] [In favour

SHRI. SAJAL RADHIKAMOHAN KAR,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-27 (3) , MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood () Shri Sajal Radhikamohan Kar Acit,Circle -27(3) 503, Swastik Solitaire, Chadve Vs. Tower 6, Vashi Railway Chs, Sion Trombay Road, Station Complex, Chember, Mumbai – 400071 Navi Mumbai – 400 703 Pan No. Aadpk3367P (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee By : Shri Reepal G.Tralshawala, A.R Revenue By : Shri Gurbinder Singh, D.R Date Of Hearing : 03/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 01/09/2021

house to the ITA No.6476/Mum/2019 AY. 2015-16 16 Shri Sajal Radhikamohan kar Vs. ACIT, Circle-27(3) adopted son. He transferred the property before the prescribed period, as per the scheme of section, and the son becomes the owner of the property for all the purposes. The deceased/assessee, admittedly, had no domain and/or right whatsoever on the said property

DCIT-8(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. SHRI. ASHOK SANTU BHAVANI, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit – 8(1)(2) Vs. Shri Ashok Santu Room No. 625, 6Th Floor Bhavnani Aayakar Bhavan, 22, New Pushpamilan, Mk Marg, Mumbai – 67 Worli Hills, Worli, 400 020. Mumbai – 400018

144 (Bangalore - Trib.), the head note of which reads as under: - I. Section 2(4 7), read with sections 2(42A), 54 and 54F, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Capital gains - Transfer (Immovable property) - Assessment year 2015-16 - Assessee acquired a property from a building society under a lease-cum-sale agreement dated 22-3-2001 - As per terms

SAI BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS,VASHI vs. PCIT-27, VASHI

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalsaibuildersanddevelopers, Vs Pr.Cit-27, B12,Ashiana,Plotno.15, Roomno.401, Sector17,Vashi, 4Thflr,Towerno.6, Navi Mumbai-400703. Vashi Railway Stationcomplex,Vashi, Navimumbai-400703. Pan/Gir No. : Abbfs0092C Appellant .. Respondent

house property was determined on the closing Sai Builders and Developers, Mumbai. stock of unsold flats in the completed projects and the Ld. DR relied on the order of the Pr.CIT. 8. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The Ld.AR envisaged that the order passed by the Pr.CIT

ABDUL RAHIM SULEMAN GHASWALA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 41(4)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Abdul Rahim Suleman Ghaswala, Dcit-41(4)(1), 142/148, Ghaswala Estate, Sv Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Road, Jogeshwari (West)-400102 Vs. Kurla Complex, Bandra (East)-400051. Pan No. Aalpg 9087 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. S.M. Makhija Revenue By : Mr. A.S. Sant, Sr. Dr : Date Of Hearing 27/12/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 01/01/2024

property would still continue to be owned by the rest of the co owned by the rest of the co-owners. Joint ownership is Joint ownership is therefore different from absolute ownership different from absolute ownership and in the case of residential unit n the case of residential unit which is jointly owned which is jointly owned none

ACIT 6(3), MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

house property\nexcluding the portions occupied by the Assessee for the purpose of\nbusiness or profession can be computed. However, the Revenue has\nfailed to point out corresponding provision providing for\ncomputation of depreciation and WDV of Block of Assets excluding\nthe WDV of the asset let out during the relevant previous year.\n7. 8. We note that Section

ITO EXEMPTION 2 4 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. VAIBHAV MEDICAL AND EDUCATION FOUNDATION, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhailito (Exemption) – 2(4), Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Mtnl Building, Peddar Road, Mumbai – 400026 ……………. Appellant Maharashtra V/S Vaibhav Medical & Education Foundation, C-1, Aditya Birla Centre, S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli, ……………. Respondent Mumbai - 400030, Maharashtra Pan – Aaatv3207A

house property”. Accordingly, we do not concur with the findings of the learned CIT(A) on this issue. As a result, Ground No.5 raised in Revenue’s appeal is allowed. ITA No.5494 -Mum-2024 (A.Y. 2011-12) 15 21. The issue arising in Ground No.6 raised in Revenue’s appeal pertains to the addition on account of interest accrued

DCIT-6(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. AASAN CORPORATE SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhaasan Corporate Vs. Dcit, Circle 6(1)(1) Solutions Private Limited 563B, 5Th Floor, 4Th Floor, Piramal Tower Aayakar Bhavan, Annexe, Ganpatrao Kadam Maharishi Karve Road, Marg Lower, Parel Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400013 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aajca7980P Appellant .. Respondent Dcit, Circle 6(1)(1) Vs. M/S Aasan Corporate Room No. 504, 5 Th Floor, Solutions Private Limited Araykar Bhavan 4Th Floor, Piramal Tower M.K. Road, Annexe, Ganpatrao Mumbai – 400 020 Kadam Marg Lower, Parel Mumbai – 400013 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aajca7980P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ronak Doshi A/W Priyank Gandhi Respondent By : Ajay Chandra Date Of Hearing 21.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 05.01.2024

House Property and thus the question of disallowance of depreciation amounting to Rs. 9,22,25,022 made by the AO does not arise 2. The Appellant prays that the disallowance of depreciation amounting to Rs. 9,22,25,022/- based on aforesaid incorrect premise be deleted WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND I: GROUND IV: ADDITION OF NOTIONAL RENT AT ADHOC

AASAN CORPORATE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 6(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and\nappeal of the revenue is dismissed

144,17,67,600/\n1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id CIT (A)\nerred in upholding the AO's contention of making addition of notional\nrent at the adhoc rate of 8% u/s 23(1)(a) of the Act and directing that\nsuch interest should be calculated from the date of allotment letter

SUNIL AMRITLAL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(IT) 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm The Income Tax Officer(It) Sunil Amritlal Shah 4(2)(1) C/O Vimal Punimiya & Room No. 1708, Co.,501, 17Th Floor, Vs. Niranjan, Air India Building, 99, Marine Drive, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400002 Mumbai 400021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Hvnps5321F The Income Tax Officer(It) Rita Sunil Shah 4(2)(1) C/O Vimal Punimiya & Room No. 1708, Co.,501, 17Th Floor, Vs. Niranjan, Air India Building, 99, Marine Drive, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400002 Mumbai 400021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Djgps8073B

144 (1) of the act on 28/12/2018 treating the gain of ₹ 4,567,000/- as the assessee share of 50% on sale of property as short-term capital gain and added to the total income of the assessee. The learned CIT confirmed this addition – A which was challenged by the assessee before the coordinate bench in ITA number 7705/M/2019

RITA SUNIL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(IT) 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm The Income Tax Officer(It) Sunil Amritlal Shah 4(2)(1) C/O Vimal Punimiya & Room No. 1708, Co.,501, 17Th Floor, Vs. Niranjan, Air India Building, 99, Marine Drive, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400002 Mumbai 400021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Hvnps5321F The Income Tax Officer(It) Rita Sunil Shah 4(2)(1) C/O Vimal Punimiya & Room No. 1708, Co.,501, 17Th Floor, Vs. Niranjan, Air India Building, 99, Marine Drive, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400002 Mumbai 400021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Djgps8073B

144 (1) of the act on 28/12/2018 treating the gain of ₹ 4,567,000/- as the assessee share of 50% on sale of property as short-term capital gain and added to the total income of the assessee. The learned CIT confirmed this addition – A which was challenged by the assessee before the coordinate bench in ITA number 7705/M/2019

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT 1(1), MUMBAI

property. \nX V. Additional claim of the Assessee with regard to inadvertent suo \nmoto disallowance made during the course of the assessment \nproceedings. \nX V I. Refund of excess dividend distribution tax (DDT). \nX V II. Transfer pricing adjustment in respect of specified domestic \ntransactions (SDT) covered by section 40A(2)(b). \nXVIII. Disallowance of year-end provisions. \nXIX. Increasing

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 36(1)(viii) speaks only of special reserve created under that section without making any distinction between reserve created before the amendment introduced by the Finance Act, 1997, in the said section effective from 01.04.1998 and reserve created post amendment. By referring to section 41(4A) according to which, withdrawal from the special reserve created and maintained