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)

b) CIT v Oriental Structural Engineers Put Ltd in ITA 605/2012 (Delhi High Court); (c) M/s JM Financial Ltd vs AddL CIT in ITA 4521/Mum/2012(09-10) 117. Learned AR also contended that the disallowance if at all under clause (iii) of Rule 8D is to be made, then only those investments are to be considered on which, dividend

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)

b) CIT v Oriental Structural Engineers Put Ltd in ITA 605/2012 (Delhi High Court); (c) M/s JM Financial Ltd vs AddL CIT in ITA 4521/Mum/2012(09-10) 117. Learned AR also contended that the disallowance if at all under clause (iii) of Rule 8D is to be made, then only those investments are to be considered on which, dividend

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)

b) CIT v Oriental Structural Engineers Put Ltd in ITA 605/2012 (Delhi High Court); (c) M/s JM Financial Ltd vs AddL CIT in ITA 4521/Mum/2012(09-10) 117. Learned AR also contended that the disallowance if at all under clause (iii) of Rule 8D is to be made, then only those investments are to be considered on which, dividend

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)

b) CIT v Oriental Structural Engineers Put Ltd in ITA 605/2012 (Delhi High Court); (c) M/s JM Financial Ltd vs AddL CIT in ITA 4521/Mum/2012(09-10) 117. Learned AR also contended that the disallowance if at all under clause (iii) of Rule 8D is to be made, then only those investments are to be considered on which, dividend

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)

b) CIT v Oriental Structural Engineers Put Ltd in ITA 605/2012 (Delhi High Court); (c) M/s JM Financial Ltd vs AddL CIT in ITA 4521/Mum/2012(09-10) 117. Learned AR also contended that the disallowance if at all under clause (iii) of Rule 8D is to be made, then only those investments are to be considered on which, dividend

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)

b) CIT v Oriental Structural Engineers Put Ltd in ITA 605/2012 (Delhi High Court); (c) M/s JM Financial Ltd vs AddL CIT in ITA 4521/Mum/2012(09-10) 117. Learned AR also contended that the disallowance if at all under clause (iii) of Rule 8D is to be made, then only those investments are to be considered on which, dividend

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)

b) CIT v Oriental Structural Engineers Put Ltd in ITA 605/2012 (Delhi High Court); (c) M/s JM Financial Ltd vs AddL CIT in ITA 4521/Mum/2012(09-10) 117. Learned AR also contended that the disallowance if at all under clause (iii) of Rule 8D is to be made, then only those investments are to be considered on which, dividend

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)

b) CIT v Oriental Structural Engineers Put Ltd in ITA 605/2012 (Delhi High Court); (c) M/s JM Financial Ltd vs AddL CIT in ITA 4521/Mum/2012(09-10) 117. Learned AR also contended that the disallowance if at all under clause (iii) of Rule 8D is to be made, then only those investments are to be considered on which, dividend

BASARIBANU MOHD RAFIQ LATIWALA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5420/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Smt. Basaribanu Mohd. Rafiq Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Latiwala, 12(3)(3), V. 701/702 Neelam, Aayakar Bhavan, Rizvi Complex, Mumbai. Carter Road, Bandra (West), Mumbai – 400 050. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Abgpl0686G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

149/- in the capital gain account maintained with the bank as stipulated u/s 54F(4) of 1961 Act . We have also observed that section 54F of 1961 Act is a beneficial provision which grants exemption from payment of tax on long term capital gains if the amount is invested in acquisition/ construction of new residential property and is meant

MAHAVIR CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD, 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

1) of this section, as they stood immediately before the commencement of the Finance Act, 2021: Provided further that the provisions of this sub-section shall not apply in a case, where a notice under section 153A, or section 153C read with section 153A, is required to be issued in relation to a search initiated under section 132 or books

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

1) of the act on 19/1/2016. As the search took place on 4/2/2016, the assessment was completed by virtue of issue of intimation dated 19/1/2016. vii. He therefore submitted that relying upon the decision of coordinate bench in case of Arihant universal reality Ltd 141 taxmann.com 249 and Agrawal entertainment Ltd 72 taxmann.com 340, assessment year 2015 – 16 is also

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

1) of the act on 19/1/2016. As the search took place on 4/2/2016, the assessment was completed by virtue of issue of intimation dated 19/1/2016. vii. He therefore submitted that relying upon the decision of coordinate bench in case of Arihant universal reality Ltd 141 taxmann.com 249 and Agrawal entertainment Ltd 72 taxmann.com 340, assessment year 2015 – 16 is also

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

1) of the act on 19/1/2016. As the search took place on 4/2/2016, the assessment was completed by virtue of issue of intimation dated 19/1/2016. vii. He therefore submitted that relying upon the decision of coordinate bench in case of Arihant universal reality Ltd 141 taxmann.com 249 and Agrawal entertainment Ltd 72 taxmann.com 340, assessment year 2015 – 16 is also

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

1) of the act on 19/1/2016. As the search took place on 4/2/2016, the assessment was completed by virtue of issue of intimation dated 19/1/2016. vii. He therefore submitted that relying upon the decision of coordinate bench in case of Arihant universal reality Ltd 141 taxmann.com 249 and Agrawal entertainment Ltd 72 taxmann.com 340, assessment year 2015 – 16 is also

MOHAN THANKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

1) of the act on 19/1/2016. As the search took place on 4/2/2016, the assessment was completed by virtue of issue of intimation dated 19/1/2016. vii. He therefore submitted that relying upon the decision of coordinate bench in case of Arihant universal reality Ltd 141 taxmann.com 249 and Agrawal entertainment Ltd 72 taxmann.com 340, assessment year 2015 – 16 is also

MOHAN GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRLE - 5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

1) of the act on 19/1/2016. As the search took place on 4/2/2016, the assessment was completed by virtue of issue of intimation dated 19/1/2016. vii. He therefore submitted that relying upon the decision of coordinate bench in case of Arihant universal reality Ltd 141 taxmann.com 249 and Agrawal entertainment Ltd 72 taxmann.com 340, assessment year 2015 – 16 is also

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

1) of the act on 19/1/2016. As the search took place on 4/2/2016, the assessment was completed by virtue of issue of intimation dated 19/1/2016. vii. He therefore submitted that relying upon the decision of coordinate bench in case of Arihant universal reality Ltd 141 taxmann.com 249 and Agrawal entertainment Ltd 72 taxmann.com 340, assessment year 2015 – 16 is also

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

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

149 (SC)] are applicable in this\ncase.\n4.10 The appellant has also relied on the decision in case of Mangla Homes\n(P) Ltd. Vs ITO (2010) 325 ITR 281(Bom) & New Delhi Hotels Ltd Vs\nACIT (2014) 360 ITR 0187 (Delhi). However, the facts of the case are\ndifferent from the case of the appellant. In case of Mangla