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

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

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon'Bleι.Τ.Α. No. 3954/Mum/2024

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

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

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

Accordingly, Ground No. 1 raised by the Appellant is allowed

House Property at serial no. 1 above [hereinafter referred to as `R503′] was treated as self-occupied property with `Nil' Annual Letting Value (ALV). 5. The return filed by the Appellant was taken up for scrutiny. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B

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

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,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

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

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

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

144B of the Act assessing the total income of Assessee at INR.21,66,82,56,980/- computing the same as under: Particulars Amount (INR) Amount (INR) Income as per Rule 2 of Schedule 1 of the Act 1156,40,75,000 Less: Exemption of pension business u/s 10(23AAB) 162,73,27,000 Less: Exemption of dividend income

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

144B of the Act assessing the total income of Assessee at INR.21,66,82,56,980/- computing the same as under: Particulars Amount (INR) Amount (INR) Income as per Rule 2 of Schedule 1 of the Act 1156,40,75,000 Less: Exemption of pension business u/s 10(23AAB) 162,73,27,000 Less: Exemption of dividend income

JASMINE BHASKAR SHAH,MUMBAI vs. PCIT-8, MUMBAI

In the result assessee’s appeal bearing ITA No

Bench: BEFOR SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

144B of the income-tax Act, 1901 on 20.09.2022, is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue, within the meaning of Section 263 of the Income-tax Act In view of this you are required to show-cause as to why the above said assessment order should not be revised under section

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Gagan Goyal

Housing LLP, 101, B-Wing, Gharkul Co-op. Society, Azad Road, Vile Parle East, Mumbai - 400057, Maharashtra PAN: AATFR3895F Cross Objector (Original Respondent) Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle – 4(4), Mumbai - 400021, Maharashtra VS. Respondent (Original Appellant) Assessee by : Shri Nitesh Joshi Revenue by :Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR Date of Hearing – 25/09/2024 Date of Order - 18/10/2024 ORDER

ASSISTANT COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. JAY BHARAT MEHTA, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

144B of the Act vide Assessment Order, dated 31/12/2022, after making following additions/disallowances: (a) The Assessing Officer made an addition of INR.1,68,55,71,440/- as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act in respect of consideration received by the Assessee during the relevant previous year from sale of 22,62,512 equity shares of JBCPL

SUJAN GOPAL MUKHERJI,MUMBAI vs. WARD 22(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year 2016-17

house property, as it is not in the nature of rent for the property. Further, the assessee submitted that the hardship allowance is also not taxable, as the receipt does not arise from the course of business of the assessee. The AO, vide order dated 09/05/2023 passed under section 147 read with section 144B

RAMEL AJIT SINGH,NAVI MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

In the result, the ground of appeal

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon’Blems. Padmavathy S, Hon’Ble(Physical Hearing) Ramel Ajit Singh Income Tax Officer, Ward No.28(2)(1), Building No. A6, 3Rd Floor Vashi, Mumbai. Swagat Chs,Plot No. 14 Vs Nerul (W),Navi Mumbai-400706 Maharashtra

house property is of Rs.5,45,230/-. The Assessing Officer after reducing the taxable income declared by the assessee from the total receipt of Rs.5,45,234/-, workout a figure of Rs.3,53,884/- (545234 - 191350) and made addition thereof in the assessment order dated 24.02.2022, passed under section 144B