DCIT-CC-5(4), MUMBAI vs. RAGHULEELA ESTATES PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

house property income on account of maintenance charges without Raghuleela Estate Pvt. Ltd. appreciating the fact that common area maintenance charges were part of rent agreement. ix) On the fact and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case

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', 'Capital Gains' and 'Income from Other Sources'. The return was selected for scrutiny and the assessment was The return was selected for scrutiny and the assessment The return was selected for scrutiny and the assessment completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B

APCOTEX INDUSTRIES LIMITED,RAOGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - CIRCLE 15(1)(1), MUMBAI

144B of the Act.\n2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its original return of income for A.Y. 2013–14 on 29.09.2013, declaring total income of Rs. 11,35,45,570/-. The assessment was originally completed under section 143(3) determining total income of Rs. 13,40,45,570/-. Subsequently, a reassessment under section

JEETEN JAYSUKHLAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 27(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Accordingly,\nGround No. 1 raised by the Appellant is allowed

144B", "Section 24(b)", "Section 23(2)", "Section 23(4)"], "issues": "Whether the property F1202 should be treated as self-occupied or deemed let out for the purpose of calculating interest deduction."}} deduction on housing

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

PRAGNA KIRTI KEDIA,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Pragna Kirti Kedia, Nfac, Delhi C 302, Waterford Building Above Vs. Navnit Motors Mumbai-400 005. Pan No. Adwpk 9701 F Appellant Respondent

144B of the Act which is bad in law, illegal and null and void. and null and void. 2. The learned CIT(A) has The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and in fact in not erred in law and in fact in not holding that the AO erred in passing the assessment order holding that the AO erred

CHEMOX EXPORTS IMPORTS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, ASSESSMENT UNIT, DELHI

properties worth Rs.3,10,00,000/-\nand also received Rent of Rs.41,46,111/- and also received Rs.29,70,941/- from providing\nservices (as per service tax return) during the year under consideration. Assessee has\nfurther made expenses and also deducted TDS on them. Assessee has made purchases or\nRs.8,00,000/- from M/s. Chennai Network Infra Ltd. However, assessee

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ROMELL HOUSING LLP, MUMBAI

In the result, the Cross Objection by the assessee is allowed, while the\nRevenue's Appeal is dismissed

Housing LLP,\n101, B-Wing, Gharkul Co-op. Society,\nAzad Road, Vile Parle East,\nMumbai - 400057,\nMaharashtra\nPAN: AATFR3895F\nCross Objector\n(Original Respondent)\nDeputy Commissioner of Income Tax,\nCentral Circle – 4(4),\nMumbai - 400021,\nMaharashtra\nVS.\nRespondent\n(Original Appellant)\nAssessee by : Shri Nitesh Joshi\nRevenue by :Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR\nDate of Hearing – 25/09/2024\nDate of Order

SIDDHARTH BHASKER SHAH,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 27, MUMBAI ( NAVI MUMBAI)

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nITA No. 2169/MUM/2025\nAssessment Year: 2021-22\nSiddharth Bhasker Shah\n803 Indraprastha Neelkanth valley,\nRajwadi, Gghatkopar east,\nMumbai - 400077\n(PAN: BIGPS6015Q)\n(Appellant)\nVs.\nPrinciple Commissioner of\nIncome Tax- 27,\nNavi Mumbai\n(Respondent)\nPresent for:\nAssessee\nRevenue\n: Shri Satyaprakash Singh, CA\n: Shri Satyaprakash R.Singh, CIT DR\nDate of Hearing\n: 07.08.2025\nDate of Pronouncement\

144B of the Act, dated 27.12.2022 for Assessment Year 2021-22.\n2.\nGrounds taken by assessee are reproduced as under:\n1. The Learned Principal Commissioner of Income-tax has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that where the A.O. after detailed verification of record and making enquires had framed the assessment, the revision powers conferred

KAMAT HOTELS (INDIA) LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

144B of the Act was 12. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: 1. DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 36(1)(iii) a. Learned CIT(A) erred in disallowing Rs. 24,16,10,195/- being interest under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act both on facts and in law. b. On the facts and circumstances of the case

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 2(1)(3), MUMBAI vs. KAMAT HOTELS INDIA LIMITED, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

144B of the Act was 12. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: 1. DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 36(1)(iii) a. Learned CIT(A) erred in disallowing Rs. 24,16,10,195/- being interest under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act both on facts and in law. b. On the facts and circumstances of the case

KAMAT HOTELS (INDIA) LIMITED,VILE PARLE MUMBAI vs. ACIT, MUMBAI MAHARASHTRA

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

144B of the Act was 12. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: 1. DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 36(1)(iii) a. Learned CIT(A) erred in disallowing Rs. 24,16,10,195/- being interest under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act both on facts and in law. b. On the facts and circumstances of the case

MITHLESH AMARNATH MAURYA,NAVI MUMBAI vs. WARD 28(2)(1), MUMBAI, VASHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarmithlesh Amarnath Ito Ward-28(2)(1), Maurya It Office, Vasi Flat No.302, Plot No. 17 & Vs. Railway Station 18, Hari Darshan Chs, Building, Navi Sector-9, Ulve, Mumbai-400 703 Maharashtra-410 206, Navi Mumbai Pan/Gir No. Asxpm2717M (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Prajakta Arote, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 13.02.2026

section 144B of the Act, wherein no addition was made in respect of the same property transaction. The assessee had placed on record a copy of the assessment order of her spouse and also furnished bank statements evidencing housing

DCIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD, MUMBAI

house property at Kolkata was\nvalued Rs 11,55,19,784/- by stamp value authorities.The valuation report\nclearly showed that the property was old since it was purchased in 1996\nand heavy repairs were needed.The assessee proposed to make a distress\nsale at lesser value of Rs 7 cr. to one Deepak Builder P.Ltd.The property\nconsisted of 32 flats. Copy

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI., MUMBAI vs. ICICI PRUDENTIAL LIFE INSURANCE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Appeal are dismissed

property',\n'Capital gains' or Income from other sources', or in section\n199 or in sections 28 to 43B, the profits and gains of any\nbusiness of insurance, including any such business carried\non by a mutual insurance company or by a co-operative society, shall\nbe computed in accordance with the rules contained in\nthe First Schedule

NILANJANA ARVINDER SINGH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2014-

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

House, Tamrind Lane, Fort, Mumbai, G.P.O. Mumbai - 400001 Maharashtra ……………. Appellant PAN – BGAPS2172J v/s DCIT, Circle – 16(3), ……………. Respondent Mumbai Assessee by : Shri Bharat Kumar Revenue by : Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR Date of Hearing – 12/03/2025 Date of Order – 13/03/2025 O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The assessee has filed the present appeals against the separate impugned order

HUHTAMAKI INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX - 6, MUMBAI

144B of the Act by the National Faceless\nAssessment Centre for captioned AY, as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest\nof the revenue treating the same as passed without any enquiry as per\nExplanation 2 to Section 263 of the Act.\n2.\nThe Learned PCIT erred in not appreciating the fact that due enquiry was\nmade by the Learned Assessing

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. ICICI PRUDENTIAL LIFE INSURANCE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, both the appeals preferred by the Revenue are\ndismissed

property',\n'Capital gains' or Income from other sources', or in section\n199 or in sections 28 to 43B, the profits and gains of any\nbusiness of insurance, including any such business carried\non by a mutual insurance company or by a co-operative\nsociety, shall be computed in accordance with the rules\ncontained in the First Schedule