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

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

SAMEER KISHORE KOTICHA,MUMBAI vs. DY.COMM OF INCOME TAX 6(1) (2) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Gagan Goyal

house property’ amounting to Rs.1,08,81,242, was denied. 5. Separately, vide application dated 28/11/2017, filed under section 154

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

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

House Property, since the assessee company is not the owner of the said properties during the financial year 2003-04. Further, the assessee company is also not in the business of letting out of premises. Hence, the rental receipts can also not be taxed under the head Business Income. Such rental receipts can only be taxed under the head "Income

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

SHAMDARSHAN PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 3(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are\nallowed

house property'. The AO's addition of notional annual letting value was unjustified.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "Sec. 22 of the Income-tax Act, 1961", "Sec. 23 of the Income-tax Act, 1961", "Sec. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961", "Sec. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961", "Sec. 154

MLL LOGISTICS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - 3(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu (Hon’Ble) & Shri Saktijit Dey (Hon’Ble)

section 133(6) of the Act from the housing society and making further enquiry, the assessing officer found that the market value of the rent in the particular area is between Rs. 4 to 4.9 lakhs per month. Thus, he was of the view that the assessee, in lieu of the reduced rent, has received refundable deposit of Rs. Crores

SHILPA PRABHAKAR KULKARNI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly for stati...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Shilpa Prabhakar Kulkarni, Dcit Centralized Processing 3 Neel Sagar, 1280 Prabhadevi Centre, Seaface Prabhadevi, Vs. Bengaluru-560 500. Mumbai-400025. Pan No. Brhpk 8129 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Chandni Shah & Kinjal Patel Revenue By : Mr. A.N. Bhalekar, Dr Date Of Hearing : 03/05/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 11/05/2023 Order

154 and upward adjustment of income are hereby dismissed. income are hereby dismissed.” 4. Before us, the Ld. Counsel of the Before us, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee filed a Paper Book assessee filed a Paper Book containing pages 1 to 156. containing pages 1 to 156. 5. We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue

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

154 TAXMAN 399 (2006) wherein the Honourable High Court has held that "It was admitted by the assessee that he sold a house property at Bangalore. Therefore, it was clear that the assessee owned a house property and sold the same. He also admitted that he purchased a property at Madras in the name of his wife

RAMESH DUNGARSHI SHAH,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INOCME TAX, CIRCLE-3, , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri. Girish Agarwal, Am Ramesh Dungarshi Shah Deputy Commissioner Of Income 108, Shreedhar Apartment, Maulana Tax, Circle – 3, Kalyan Vs. 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, Murbad Azad Road, Dombivali, East, Thane – 421201. Road, Kalyan West – 421301. Pan/Gir No. Aavps0931K (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Devendra Jain, Adv. (Virtually) : Shri. Asif Karmali (Sr. Dr) Respondent By : 14.02.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 14.05.2025 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short) Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ For Short) 2015-16. 2. It Is Observed That The Assessee Has Filed This Present Appeal With A Delay Of 47 Days Beyond The Period Of Limitation For Which The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condoning The Delay Along With The Reasons Specified For The Delay. After Hearing The Rival Contentions, We Deem It Fit To Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal For The Reason That There Was ‘Sufficient Cause’ & Bonafide Reasons For The Delay. Delay Condoned.

house property for unsold shops/flats which remained vacant during the year under consideration. The learned Assessing Officer (‘ld. AO’ for short) then passed the assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Act dated 21.12.2017, thereby determining total income at Rs. 3,88,77,490/- after making an addition

PROCTER & GAMBLE HOME PRODUCTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, ground No. 3 of the

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Arun Khodpia(Physical Hearing) Procter & Gamble Home Products Ltd. Addl Cit Rg 8(2) P & G Plaza Cardinal Gracias Rd. Mumbai-400020. Chakala, Andheri (E)- 40009 Vs [Pan:Aaacp4072C] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Procter & Gamble Home Products Addl Cit 8(2) Private Limited, Vs Mumbai-400020. P & G Plaza Cardinal Gracias Rd. Chakala, Andheri (E)- 40009 [Pan:Aaacp4072C] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 92C(3) of the Act are satisfied; b. Rejecting Vatika Marketing Limited from the set of comparables; Procter & Gamble Home Products Private Limited (AY 2007-08 & 2008-09)) ITA No(s)4191/Mum/2014 & 2876/Mum/2015 c. Retaining Green Care Holdings Limited as a comparable company; d. Not allowing the working capital and risk adjustments. iii. The Appellant prays that the aforesaid

PROCTER & GAMBLE HOME PRODUCTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, ground No. 3 of the

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Arun Khodpia(Physical Hearing) Procter & Gamble Home Products Ltd. Addl Cit Rg 8(2) P & G Plaza Cardinal Gracias Rd. Mumbai-400020. Chakala, Andheri (E)- 40009 Vs [Pan:Aaacp4072C] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Procter & Gamble Home Products Addl Cit 8(2) Private Limited, Vs Mumbai-400020. P & G Plaza Cardinal Gracias Rd. Chakala, Andheri (E)- 40009 [Pan:Aaacp4072C] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 92C(3) of the Act are satisfied; b. Rejecting Vatika Marketing Limited from the set of comparables; Procter & Gamble Home Products Private Limited (AY 2007-08 & 2008-09)) ITA No(s)4191/Mum/2014 & 2876/Mum/2015 c. Retaining Green Care Holdings Limited as a comparable company; d. Not allowing the working capital and risk adjustments. iii. The Appellant prays that the aforesaid

ISLAND STAR MALL DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) NFAC, MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Island Star Mall Developers Commissioner Of Income-Tax Private Limited (Appeals), Market City Resources Pvt. Ltd. Nfac, Delhi Ground Floor, R.R. Hosiery Bldg, Circle 6(1)(2), 5 Th Floor, R. Vs. Shree Laxmi Woollen Mills No. 506, Aaykar Bhavan, Estate, Mumbai Mumbai-400 011 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No.Aabci4988F Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Sanjay V. Deshmukh, Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.07.2022

house property. 07. Further, on 15 December 2017, the learned Assessing Officer also issued notice under Section 154 of the Act proposing

ACIT -CC- 4(2), MUMBAI vs. GIGAPLEX ESTATE PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

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

House Property has claimed in its Return of Income filed u/s 139(1) of the Act.” 2. “The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the decision held by the Hon’ble apex Court in CIT v. Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd. and by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in K. Sudhakar S. Shanbhag v. ITO with regard

MORA] FINANZ CORPORATION,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRLE - 5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as per above direction

Bench: Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

154 & 155/MUM/2022 (A.Ys: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13) Moraj Finanz Corporation v. DCIT – Central Circle – 5(2) C/7 Big Splash, 1st Floor Room No. 1908, 19th Floor Turbhe Road, Vashi Air India Building Navi Mumbai-400705 Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 PAN: AAKFM5831H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented by : Shri Pradip N. Kapasi Department Represented by : Smt. Mahita Nair Date

MORAJ FINANZ CORPORATION,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as per above direction

Bench: Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

154 & 155/MUM/2022 (A.Ys: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13) Moraj Finanz Corporation v. DCIT – Central Circle – 5(2) C/7 Big Splash, 1st Floor Room No. 1908, 19th Floor Turbhe Road, Vashi Air India Building Navi Mumbai-400705 Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 PAN: AAKFM5831H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented by : Shri Pradip N. Kapasi Department Represented by : Smt. Mahita Nair Date

MORAJ FINANZ CORPORATION,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCLT CENTRAL CIRLE - 5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as per above direction

Bench: Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

154 & 155/MUM/2022 (A.Ys: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13) Moraj Finanz Corporation v. DCIT – Central Circle – 5(2) C/7 Big Splash, 1st Floor Room No. 1908, 19th Floor Turbhe Road, Vashi Air India Building Navi Mumbai-400705 Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 PAN: AAKFM5831H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented by : Shri Pradip N. Kapasi Department Represented by : Smt. Mahita Nair Date