ARIHANT DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -1, KALYAN

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are\ndismissed

property’. [CIT\nv Ansal Housing Finance & Leasing Co. Ltd (2016) 72 Taxman.com 254].\nThus, the AO is not justified in treating the rental receipts of Rs.\n2,82,16,861/- as business receipts and deny the Appellant standard\ndeduction amounting to Rs.83,74,762/- allowable under section 24(a) of\nthe Act.\n3.1 Brief facts of the case are that

ARIHANT DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -1 , KALYAN

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are\ndismissed

property’. [CIT\nv Ansal Housing Finance & Leasing Co. Ltd (2016) 72 Taxman.com 254].\nThus, the AO is not justified in treating the rental receipts of Rs.\n2,82,16,861/- as business receipts and deny the Appellant standard\ndeduction amounting to Rs.83,74,762/- allowable under section 24(a) of\nthe Act.\n3.1 Brief facts of the case are that

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)

147 of the Act on the issue of "allocation of expenses" towards the house property income, when the said issue is already a subject matter of an appeal at the time of issue the notice u/s 148 of the Act. Accordingly, it is prayed that said reopening is in violation of express third proviso to section

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)

147 of the Act on the issue of "allocation of expenses" towards the house property income, when the said issue is already a subject matter of an appeal at the time of issue the notice u/s 148 of the Act. Accordingly, it is prayed that said reopening is in violation of express third proviso to section

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)

147 of the Act on the issue of "allocation of expenses" towards the house property income, when the said issue is already a subject matter of an appeal at the time of issue the notice u/s 148 of the Act. Accordingly, it is prayed that said reopening is in violation of express third proviso to section

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)

147 of the Act on the issue of "allocation of expenses" towards the house property income, when the said issue is already a subject matter of an appeal at the time of issue the notice u/s 148 of the Act. Accordingly, it is prayed that said reopening is in violation of express third proviso to section

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)

147 of the Act on the issue of "allocation of expenses" towards the house property income, when the said issue is already a subject matter of an appeal at the time of issue the notice u/s 148 of the Act. Accordingly, it is prayed that said reopening is in violation of express third proviso to section

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)

147 of the Act on the issue of "allocation of expenses" towards the house property income, when the said issue is already a subject matter of an appeal at the time of issue the notice u/s 148 of the Act. Accordingly, it is prayed that said reopening is in violation of express third proviso to section

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)

147 of the Act on the issue of "allocation of expenses" towards the house property income, when the said issue is already a subject matter of an appeal at the time of issue the notice u/s 148 of the Act. Accordingly, it is prayed that said reopening is in violation of express third proviso to section

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)

147 of the Act on the issue of "allocation of expenses" towards the house property income, when the said issue is already a subject matter of an appeal at the time of issue the notice u/s 148 of the Act. Accordingly, it is prayed that said reopening is in violation of express third proviso to section

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)

147 of the Act on the issue of "allocation of expenses" towards the house property income, when the said issue is already a subject matter of an appeal at the time of issue the notice u/s 148 of the Act. Accordingly, it is prayed that said reopening is in violation of express third proviso to section

M/S. SUMER BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(3),, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Sumer Builders Pvt. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax, 220, Commerce House, Central Circle – 5(3), 140, Nagindas Master (Erstwhile The Assistant Road, Commissioner Of Income Vs. Fort, Mumbai – 400 023 Tax, Central Circle-36, Pan: Aaacs7947P Mumbai), 1906, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Nishit Gandhi, A.R. Revenue By : Shri T.S. Khalsa, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 25.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2021 O R D E R

House, Central Circle – 5(3), 140, Nagindas Master (Erstwhile The Assistant Road, Commissioner of Income Vs. Fort, Mumbai – 400 023 Tax, Central Circle-36, PAN: AAACS7947P Mumbai), 1906, 19th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Nishit Gandhi, A.R. Revenue by : Shri T.S. Khalsa, D.R. Date of Hearing : 25.11.2020 Date of Pronouncement

DCIT CEN CIR 8(4), MUMBAI vs. PHOENIX MILLS LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Ramesh C Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 3991/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 3992/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 3993/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 3994/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) बिधम/ Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Phoenix Mills Ltd. Income Tax, 462, Senapati Bapat Vs. Central Circle-8(4), Marg, Lower Parel, 6Th Floor, Room No. 658, Mumbai-400013. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacp 3325 J (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

house property by relying the decision of Hon’ble ITAT in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2009-10 and A.Y. 2010-11, without appreciating the fact that the department has not accepted the decision of the Hon’ble ITAT in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2009- 10 and 2010-11 and appeal filed before the Hon’ble Bombay

DCIT-1(2)1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PATIL CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue s filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon’Ble & Ms. Padmavathy S., Hon’Ble

Property and Land Developers P Ltd, Vs. ACIT, [2018] 93 taxmann.com 296 P Ltd, Vs. ACIT, [2018] 93 taxmann.com 296 (Bom) (Bom) 4. Pr. CIT Vs. Montecarlo Construction Ltd, [2024] 161 Pr. CIT Vs. Montecarlo Construction Ltd, [2024] 161 Pr. CIT Vs. Montecarlo Construction Ltd, [2024] 161 taxmann.com 222 (Guj) taxmann.com 222 (Guj) 7. We have heard the counsels

DCIT-1(2)1, MUMBAI., MUMBAI vs. PATIL CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue s filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon’Ble & Ms. Padmavathy S., Hon’Ble

Property and Land Developers P Ltd, Vs. ACIT, [2018] 93 taxmann.com 296 P Ltd, Vs. ACIT, [2018] 93 taxmann.com 296 (Bom) (Bom) 4. Pr. CIT Vs. Montecarlo Construction Ltd, [2024] 161 Pr. CIT Vs. Montecarlo Construction Ltd, [2024] 161 Pr. CIT Vs. Montecarlo Construction Ltd, [2024] 161 taxmann.com 222 (Guj) taxmann.com 222 (Guj) 7. We have heard the counsels

SHRI AMIT MANGILAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, - 33(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the above appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

House, 1st Floor, Kandivali East, Mumbai- Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400101, Maharashtra 400021, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AABPJ0925G Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Appellant by : Shri Naresh Jain & Shri Mahaveer Jain, ARs Respondent by : Shri Ram Krishn Kedia, (Sr. DR) Date of Hearing 13.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement 28.07.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER PRABHASH SHANKAR

DEEPAK KANTILAL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-19(1), MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara (Jm) & Shri Girish Agrawal (Am)

house property amounting to Rs.12,95,147/- to next year also disallowed. 6.1.2 In appellate proceeding, appellant has repeated his contention which was placed before the AO during assessment proceeding. Appellant contended that as per section

DCIT 9(2), MUMBAI vs. MAGNUS PROPERTIES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwaldy. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Circle–9(2), Mumbai V/S M/S. Magnus Properties Pvt. Ltd. Uniphos House, Madhu Park ……………. Respondent 11Th Road, Khar (West) Mumbai 400 052 Pan – Aadcm7520M

147 of the Act is invalid. 4. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) after considering the submissions of the assessee in the context of facts and material on record, found that in course of the original proceedings under section 143(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer has examined the issue whether the rental income is to be assessed as house property