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)

section (2) of section 14A. In other words, disallowance u/s 14A(l) can only be triggered, once the conditions laid down under sub- section (2) are satisfied. To work out the disallowance under Rule 8D(2) 52 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. and for its. quantification, the Assessing Officer has to first examine the accounts of the assessee and also

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)

section (2) of section 14A. In other words, disallowance u/s 14A(l) can only be triggered, once the conditions laid down under sub- section (2) are satisfied. To work out the disallowance under Rule 8D(2) 52 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. and for its. quantification, the Assessing Officer has to first examine the accounts of the assessee and also

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)

section (2) of section 14A. In other words, disallowance u/s 14A(l) can only be triggered, once the conditions laid down under sub- section (2) are satisfied. To work out the disallowance under Rule 8D(2) 52 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. and for its. quantification, the Assessing Officer has to first examine the accounts of the assessee and also

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)

section (2) of section 14A. In other words, disallowance u/s 14A(l) can only be triggered, once the conditions laid down under sub- section (2) are satisfied. To work out the disallowance under Rule 8D(2) 52 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. and for its. quantification, the Assessing Officer has to first examine the accounts of the assessee and also

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)

section (2) of section 14A. In other words, disallowance u/s 14A(l) can only be triggered, once the conditions laid down under sub- section (2) are satisfied. To work out the disallowance under Rule 8D(2) 52 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. and for its. quantification, the Assessing Officer has to first examine the accounts of the assessee and also

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)

section (2) of section 14A. In other words, disallowance u/s 14A(l) can only be triggered, once the conditions laid down under sub- section (2) are satisfied. To work out the disallowance under Rule 8D(2) 52 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. and for its. quantification, the Assessing Officer has to first examine the accounts of the assessee and also

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)

section (2) of section 14A. In other words, disallowance u/s 14A(l) can only be triggered, once the conditions laid down under sub- section (2) are satisfied. To work out the disallowance under Rule 8D(2) 52 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. and for its. quantification, the Assessing Officer has to first examine the accounts of the assessee and also

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

property at Mumbai was purchased vide agreement dated 04.04.2014. The appellant's submission that possession of the flat was taken on 02.05.2013 is not substantiated by any evidence. The provision of section 54(2) provides that the amount of capital gain which is not appropriated by the assessee towards the purchase of the new asset made within one year before

VISHWANATH ACHARAYA,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 11(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7976/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08)

house properties in accordance with the ITA 7976/M/11 23 provisions of section 22 and 23 of the Act and the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Tip Top Typography (supra) after considering the additional evidences filed by the assessee in his defense. Accordingly we set aside the order

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.,,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

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

S.P. CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. A.C.I.T.RG.11(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the Assessment Years

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

House property instead considering 10% of the original cost of acquisition as the annual letting value. 79. This issue has been dealt with by us for the A.Y. 2005-06 and the decision rendered therein applies Mutatis Mutandis to the A.Y. 2009-10. Therefore, we direct the Assessing Officer to follow our observations and decision given for the Assessment Year

S.P. CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG 11(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the Assessment Years

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

House property instead considering 10% of the original cost of acquisition as the annual letting value. 79. This issue has been dealt with by us for the A.Y. 2005-06 and the decision rendered therein applies Mutatis Mutandis to the A.Y. 2009-10. Therefore, we direct the Assessing Officer to follow our observations and decision given for the Assessment Year

S.P CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. ACIT RG 11(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the Assessment Years

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

House property instead considering 10% of the original cost of acquisition as the annual letting value. 79. This issue has been dealt with by us for the A.Y. 2005-06 and the decision rendered therein applies Mutatis Mutandis to the A.Y. 2009-10. Therefore, we direct the Assessing Officer to follow our observations and decision given for the Assessment Year

S.P CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. ACIT RG 11(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the Assessment Years

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

House property instead considering 10% of the original cost of acquisition as the annual letting value. 79. This issue has been dealt with by us for the A.Y. 2005-06 and the decision rendered therein applies Mutatis Mutandis to the A.Y. 2009-10. Therefore, we direct the Assessing Officer to follow our observations and decision given for the Assessment Year