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)

1) can be made only when the assessee while computing the total income, claims any expenditure which is or can be said to be attributable for earning of the exempt income i.e. income which do not form part of the total income. Such a disallowance can be made/quantified in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) of 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)

1) can be made only when the assessee while computing the total income, claims any expenditure which is or can be said to be attributable for earning of the exempt income i.e. income which do not form part of the total income. Such a disallowance can be made/quantified in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) of 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)

1) can be made only when the assessee while computing the total income, claims any expenditure which is or can be said to be attributable for earning of the exempt income i.e. income which do not form part of the total income. Such a disallowance can be made/quantified in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) of 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)

1) can be made only when the assessee while computing the total income, claims any expenditure which is or can be said to be attributable for earning of the exempt income i.e. income which do not form part of the total income. Such a disallowance can be made/quantified in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) of 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)

1) can be made only when the assessee while computing the total income, claims any expenditure which is or can be said to be attributable for earning of the exempt income i.e. income which do not form part of the total income. Such a disallowance can be made/quantified in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) of 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)

1) can be made only when the assessee while computing the total income, claims any expenditure which is or can be said to be attributable for earning of the exempt income i.e. income which do not form part of the total income. Such a disallowance can be made/quantified in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) of 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)

1) can be made only when the assessee while computing the total income, claims any expenditure which is or can be said to be attributable for earning of the exempt income i.e. income which do not form part of the total income. Such a disallowance can be made/quantified in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) of 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)

1) can be made only when the assessee while computing the total income, claims any expenditure which is or can be said to be attributable for earning of the exempt income i.e. income which do not form part of the total income. Such a disallowance can be made/quantified in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) of 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)

1) can be made only when the assessee while computing the total income, claims any expenditure which is or can be said to be attributable for earning of the exempt income i.e. income which do not form part of the total income. Such a disallowance can be made/quantified in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) of section

PRIYA MOHAN GURNANAI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

150 Taxman 4]. With respect to vacancy allowance, he referred to several judicial precedents of coordinate benches. He also submitted that according to Section 24 (1) of the Act, deduction of 30% should have been allowed to the assessee. Accordingly, he submitted that there is no jurisdiction to make this addition, the addition made deserves to be deleted, if same

PRIYA MOHAN GURNANAI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

150 Taxman 4]. With respect to vacancy allowance, he referred to several judicial precedents of coordinate benches. He also submitted that according to Section 24 (1) of the Act, deduction of 30% should have been allowed to the assessee. Accordingly, he submitted that there is no jurisdiction to make this addition, the addition made deserves to be deleted, if same

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

150 Taxman 4]. With respect to vacancy allowance, he referred to several judicial precedents of coordinate benches. He also submitted that according to Section 24 (1) of the Act, deduction of 30% should have been allowed to the assessee. Accordingly, he submitted that there is no jurisdiction to make this addition, the addition made deserves to be deleted, if same

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

150 Taxman 4]. With respect to vacancy allowance, he referred to several judicial precedents of coordinate benches. He also submitted that according to Section 24 (1) of the Act, deduction of 30% should have been allowed to the assessee. Accordingly, he submitted that there is no jurisdiction to make this addition, the addition made deserves to be deleted, if same

PRIYA MOHAN GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. CY CIT-CC-5(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

150 Taxman 4]. With respect to vacancy allowance, he referred to several judicial precedents of coordinate benches. He also submitted that according to Section 24 (1) of the Act, deduction of 30% should have been allowed to the assessee. Accordingly, he submitted that there is no jurisdiction to make this addition, the addition made deserves to be deleted, if same

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

150 Taxman 4]. With respect to vacancy allowance, he referred to several judicial precedents of coordinate benches. He also submitted that according to Section 24 (1) of the Act, deduction of 30% should have been allowed to the assessee. Accordingly, he submitted that there is no jurisdiction to make this addition, the addition made deserves to be deleted, if same

AMIRALI AKBARALI ENGINEER,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 24(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2012-13 Amirali Akbarali Engineer, Vs Acit, A/201, Senha Apna Ghar, Ward-24(1), Unit No.11, Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Swami Samarth Nagar, Mumbai Andheri (West), Mumbai-400053 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aacpe9331N

1/ 49 Taxman 87 (SC) (para 7) and " B.B. Sarkar v. CIT [1981] 132 ITR 150/ 7 Taxman 239 (Cal.) (para 10). 2.3. It is further noted that Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs Raman Kumar Suri [2013] 29 taxmann.com 231 (Bombay)/[2013] 212 Taxman 411 (Bombay)/[2013] 255 CTR 257 (Bombay) held as under:- “This appeal

M/S THE MAHARASHTRA STATE CO. OP BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO-1(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly assessee is allowed partly whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

house property”. 6.2 As far as the issue of claim of the TDS is concerned As far as the issue of claim of the TDS is concerned As far as the issue of claim of the TDS is concerned, The assessee has taken credit of TDS of Rs. assessee has taken credit of TDS of Rs. Rs 1

DY CIT-1(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly assessee is allowed partly whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

house property”. 6.2 As far as the issue of claim of the TDS is concerned As far as the issue of claim of the TDS is concerned As far as the issue of claim of the TDS is concerned, The assessee has taken credit of TDS of Rs. assessee has taken credit of TDS of Rs. Rs 1