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)

section 37 of the Act, the entire expenditure be held to be allowable as a deduction since the assessee had even offered service charges to tax under the head 'Income from Business. In 'case the deduction for expenses is not allowed then there will be a case, wherein the assessee won't be given the deduction for the expenses incurred

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)

section 37 of the Act, the entire expenditure be held to be allowable as a deduction since the assessee had even offered service charges to tax under the head 'Income from Business. In 'case the deduction for expenses is not allowed then there will be a case, wherein the assessee won't be given the deduction for the expenses incurred

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)

section 37 of the Act, the entire expenditure be held to be allowable as a deduction since the assessee had even offered service charges to tax under the head 'Income from Business. In 'case the deduction for expenses is not allowed then there will be a case, wherein the assessee won't be given the deduction for the expenses incurred

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)

section 37 of the Act, the entire expenditure be held to be allowable as a deduction since the assessee had even offered service charges to tax under the head 'Income from Business. In 'case the deduction for expenses is not allowed then there will be a case, wherein the assessee won't be given the deduction for the expenses incurred

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)

section 37 of the Act, the entire expenditure be held to be allowable as a deduction since the assessee had even offered service charges to tax under the head 'Income from Business. In 'case the deduction for expenses is not allowed then there will be a case, wherein the assessee won't be given the deduction for the expenses incurred

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)

section 37 of the Act, the entire expenditure be held to be allowable as a deduction since the assessee had even offered service charges to tax under the head 'Income from Business. In 'case the deduction for expenses is not allowed then there will be a case, wherein the assessee won't be given the deduction for the expenses incurred

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)

section 37 of the Act, the entire expenditure be held to be allowable as a deduction since the assessee had even offered service charges to tax under the head 'Income from Business. In 'case the deduction for expenses is not allowed then there will be a case, wherein the assessee won't be given the deduction for the expenses incurred

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)

section 37 of the Act, the entire expenditure be held to be allowable as a deduction since the assessee had even offered service charges to tax under the head 'Income from Business. In 'case the deduction for expenses is not allowed then there will be a case, wherein the assessee won't be given the deduction for the expenses incurred

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)

section 37 of the Act, the entire expenditure be held to be allowable as a deduction since the assessee had even offered service charges to tax under the head 'Income from Business. In 'case the deduction for expenses is not allowed then there will be a case, wherein the assessee won't be given the deduction for the expenses incurred

INCOME TAX OFFICER-25(3)(5), MUMBAI vs. NILIMA ABHIJIT TANNU, MUMBAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri G. Manjunatha, Am

154 and P.R.Kulkarni and Sons (HUF) V/s.Adll.CIT(2011) 135 TTJ (Bang) 630.1n the context of the above cited judgement it is pertinent to note that provisions of section 54 and 54F of the I.T.Act are similar and hence the above judgement can be applied to understand the provisions of section 54of I.T.Act. 5.9 The Hon'ble Mumbai bench

SIR RATAN TATA TRUST,MUMBAI SUBURBAN vs. ADDITIONAL /JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NFAC, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in both AY 2014-15 and AY

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

House, 24, National Faceless Assessment Homi Mody Street, Fort, Centre-2(1), Vs. Mumbai-400001 MTNL Tele Building, PAN : AAATS1013P Cumballa Hills, Peddar Road, Mumbai-400026. Appellant) : Respondent) Appellant/Assessee by : Shri P. J. Pardiwala a/w Shri Sukhsagar Syal, AR Revenue/Respondent by : Shri Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 22.07.2024 Date of Pronouncement 26.08.2024 : Per Padmavathy S, AM: 1. These

SIR RATAN TATA TRUST,MUMBAI SUBURBAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in both AY 2014-15 and AY

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

House, 24, National Faceless Assessment Homi Mody Street, Fort, Centre-2(1), Vs. Mumbai-400001 MTNL Tele Building, PAN : AAATS1013P Cumballa Hills, Peddar Road, Mumbai-400026. Appellant) : Respondent) Appellant/Assessee by : Shri P. J. Pardiwala a/w Shri Sukhsagar Syal, AR Revenue/Respondent by : Shri Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 22.07.2024 Date of Pronouncement 26.08.2024 : Per Padmavathy S, AM: 1. These

JAYABEN V. SHETH & OTHERS,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 19 (2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 7219 /मुं/2018 ("न.व.2015-16) M/S.Jayaben V Sheth & Others, 3, Ground Floor, Vincent View, Dr. B.A.Road, Dadar(E), Mumbai 400 014. : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant Pan:Aadfj4327Q बनाम/ Vs. The Acit 19(2), Matru Mandir, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 034 : ""थ"/ Respondent

House Property’ against ‘Income from Other Sources’. The return of the assessee was processed by CPC Bangalore under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) vide order dated 24/04/2016. Thereafter, CPC, Bangalore passed rectification order under section 154

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-2(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

154 (SC). The AO vide order passed under section 143(3) of the Act disagreed with the ITA No.1451, 1452, 1547 & 1548/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2018-19) 6 submissions of the assessee and computed a disallowance of Rs.57,84,37,239 under section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Rules. 6. The learned CIT(A), vide impugned order

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

154 (SC). The AO vide order passed under section 143(3) of the Act disagreed with the ITA No.1451, 1452, 1547 & 1548/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2018-19) 6 submissions of the assessee and computed a disallowance of Rs.57,84,37,239 under section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Rules. 6. The learned CIT(A), vide impugned order

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

154 (SC). The AO vide order passed under section 143(3) of the Act disagreed with the submissions of the assessee and computed a disallowance of Rs.57,84,37,239 under section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Rules. 6. The learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, in principle confirmed the stand of the AO in invoking the provisions

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. THE NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

154 (SC). The AO vide order passed under section 143(3) of the Act disagreed with the submissions of the assessee and computed a disallowance of Rs.57,84,37,239 under section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Rules. 6. The learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, in principle confirmed the stand of the AO in invoking the provisions

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