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. DCIT 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

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

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

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

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 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 that 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

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 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

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

3) is the entire income accumulated and not merely the income accumulated in excess of the limits specified in section 11(1). In other words, such an assessee loses the benefit of the accumulation permitted under section 11(1). The question of chargeability of a part of income to tax which is not exempt arises only when the accumulation

M/S. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT (IT)1(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blestandard Chartered Bank V. Acit – Range-1(3) Taxation Department, 23-25 Scindia House, Ballard Estate M.G. Road, 3Rd Floor N.M. Marg, Mumbai - 400038 Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aabcs4681D (Appellant) (Respondent) Adit (It)– 2(3) V. Standard Chartered Bank Room No. 120, 1St Floor Taxation Department, 23-25 Scindia House, Ballard Estate M.G. Road, 3Rd Floor N.M. Marg, Mumbai - 400038 Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aabcs4681D (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri P.J. Pardiwala & Assessee Represented By : Shri Fenil Bhatt Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash Department Represented By :

property of the Housing Board. It was held that the expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively on the welfare of the employees and, therefore, constituted legitimate business expenditure. As the assessee company acquired no ownership rights in the tenements, this Court said that the expenditure was incurred merely with a view to carry on the business of the company more

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

3 crores to the said builder which is legalized on 15.02.2014. From the details filed of computation of income of the appellant's mother Mrs. Jamila A. Merchant, it is noted that she has made an investment in purchase of flat no. 1402, A Wing, Poseidon, Versova, Andheri for an amount of Rs. 1.90 crores and the amount paid

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