MARSHALL PRODUCE BROKERS COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

House Property Exchange Gain 1227005 0 1227005 Business Income Total 29771374 5.1 The Assessing Officer added the variation in brokerage income The Assessing Officer added the variation in brokerage income The Assessing Officer added the variation in brokerage income amounting to Rs.1,56,87,264/ 56,87,264/- along with variation in exchange along with variation in exchange gain

DCIT-3(2)(1), AAYKAR BHAWAN vs. MARSHALL PRODUCE BROKERS COMPANY PVT LTD, NARIMAN POINT

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

House Property Exchange Gain 1227005 0 1227005 Business Income Total 29771374 5.1 The Assessing Officer added the variation in brokerage income The Assessing Officer added the variation in brokerage income The Assessing Officer added the variation in brokerage income amounting to Rs.1,56,87,264/ 56,87,264/- along with variation in exchange along with variation in exchange gain

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

Section 13(3) (b) are clearly invoked? 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing standard deduction u/s. 24 of the Act while computing the Income from House Property as the said deduction is not available for charitable Trust/entity/institution as held in the assessee own case

M/S. NICHOLAS PIRAMAL INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT CUR 7(1),

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanpiramal Enterprises Ltd Vs. Acit, Circle – 7(1) (Formerly Known As Aayakar Bhavan Piramal Healthcare Ltd) Mumbai – 400020. (Before Known As Nicholas Piramal Ind) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400013. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn4538P Appellant .. Respondent Dcit, Circle – 7(1) Vs. Piramal Enterprises Ltd Aayakar Bhyavan (Formerly Known As Mumbai – 400 020. Piramal Healthcare Ltd) (Before Known As Nicholas Piramal Ind) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn4538P Assessee By : Mr.Ronak Doshi & Ms.Manshi Padhiyar.Ar Revenue By : Mr.S.N.Kabra.Dr

145 A of the Income- tax Act ignoring appropriate treatment to Modvat credit. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in directing to treat the expenditure of Rs.3,21,98,592/- on consultancy charges as revenue expenditure and allow deduction u/s.35 DD ignoring the fact that under the provisions

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

145 (Bangalore - Trib.)l[2019] 175 lTD 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

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

NAKUL AGGARWAL,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-24(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt.Renu Jauhri ()

house property and claimed exemption under provisions of section 54F. The Ld.AR drew our attention to the manner in which the agreement was entered into by the assessee with the builder which is at page 97, 145

ACIT, CIRCLE-24(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. NAKUL AGGARWAL, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt.Renu Jauhri ()

house property and claimed exemption under provisions of section 54F. The Ld.AR drew our attention to the manner in which the agreement was entered into by the assessee with the builder which is at page 97, 145

SHIRISH M DALVI,KALYAN vs. DCIT CIR 29(3), MUMBAI

Accordingly, we uphold the finding of Ld CIT(A). The ground No. four of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shirish M. Dalvi, Dcit Circle-23(3), D’ Block, 1St Floor, Zojwala 3Rd Floor, C-10, Pratyaksha Vs. Complex, Sahajanand Kar Bhavan, Bandra East, Chowk, Kalyan-421 301. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadpd 0358 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit Circle-23(3), Shirish M. Dalvi, Room No. 402, 4Th Floor, C-10 D’ Block, 1St Floor, Zojwala Vs. Bldg., Pratyakshakar Complex, Sahajanand Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Chowk, Kalyan-421 301. Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadpd 0358 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shirish M. Dalvi, Dcit-29(3), D’ Block, 1St Floor, Zojwala Room No. 402, 4Th Floor, C- Vs. Complex, Sahajanand 10, Pratyaksha Kar Chowk, Kalyan-421 301. Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra, Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadpd 0358 H

housing project was granted by the local authority KDMC on 14/09/2011, as amended construction permission. The Ld. Counsel submitted that plan sanction Shirish M. Dalvi for deduction under section 80IB(10) as said, sanction was for different assessee, for a different project, which was never commenced and constructed and the said permission had permanently lapsed under the provisions of section

DCIT CIR 23(3), MUMBAI vs. SHIRISH M DALVI, MUMBAI

Accordingly, we uphold the finding of Ld CIT(A). The ground No. four of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shirish M. Dalvi, Dcit Circle-23(3), D’ Block, 1St Floor, Zojwala 3Rd Floor, C-10, Pratyaksha Vs. Complex, Sahajanand Kar Bhavan, Bandra East, Chowk, Kalyan-421 301. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadpd 0358 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit Circle-23(3), Shirish M. Dalvi, Room No. 402, 4Th Floor, C-10 D’ Block, 1St Floor, Zojwala Vs. Bldg., Pratyakshakar Complex, Sahajanand Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Chowk, Kalyan-421 301. Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadpd 0358 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shirish M. Dalvi, Dcit-29(3), D’ Block, 1St Floor, Zojwala Room No. 402, 4Th Floor, C- Vs. Complex, Sahajanand 10, Pratyaksha Kar Chowk, Kalyan-421 301. Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra, Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadpd 0358 H

housing project was granted by the local authority KDMC on 14/09/2011, as amended construction permission. The Ld. Counsel submitted that plan sanction Shirish M. Dalvi for deduction under section 80IB(10) as said, sanction was for different assessee, for a different project, which was never commenced and constructed and the said permission had permanently lapsed under the provisions of section

SUMAN GUPTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - CC- 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

house property ₹.1,45,100/-, was added to the income of the assessee. A Search action u/s 132 and survey action u/s 133A of Act were carried out at various premises on Ushdev Group on 11.09.2014. Consequent upon the search on Ushdev Group, the case of the assessee was centralized and notice u/s.153A dated 04.03.2015 was issued to the assessee

SUMAN GUPTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT -CC- 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

house property ₹.1,45,100/-, was added to the income of the assessee. A Search action u/s 132 and survey action u/s 133A of Act were carried out at various premises on Ushdev Group on 11.09.2014. Consequent upon the search on Ushdev Group, the case of the assessee was centralized and notice u/s.153A dated 04.03.2015 was issued to the assessee

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

SUPREME HIGH SPACES LLP,MUMBAI vs. NAFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

section 145(1) of the Act, revenue is to be\nrecognized when 25% of total cost of project has been completed.\nHence, the explanation of the Assessee is not tenable and hereby\nrejected. Keeping in view that more than 25% of project was completed\n(substantially completed up to F.Y. 2017-18) and the Assessee received\nsubstantial number of advances

DCIT- 8(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. PIRAMAL ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

section 22 for the Head Income received from House Property which reads as under: "22. The annual value of property consisting of any buildings or lands appurtenant thereto of which the assessee is the owner, other than such portions of such property as he may occupy for the- purposes of any business or profession carried on by him the profits

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

house property on 02/02/2011 claimed deduction of long term capital gain in terms of provisions of section 54 of the act.The learned assessing officer took date of purchase agreement 25/7/2009 as date purchase of property , the deduction under section 54 of the act was not allowed. 012. Thus, draft assessment order under section 144C (1) of the act was passed

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

house property on 02/02/2011 claimed deduction of long term capital gain in terms of provisions of section 54 of the act.The learned assessing officer took date of purchase agreement 25/7/2009 as date purchase of property , the deduction under section 54 of the act was not allowed. 012. Thus, draft assessment order under section 144C (1) of the act was passed

DCIT 27(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. GOPURAM DEVELOPERS , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is accordingly dismissed

house property”. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred the appeal before the Ld. FAA. After considering submissions of the assessee, the Ld. FAA allowed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved with the finding of the Ld.FAA, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the grounds as reproduced above. 3 DCIT27(1) 3. Before us, the Ld. counsel of the assessee