ACIT 6(3), MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

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 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 that Section

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

section 37 that the expression "for the purpose of business" includes expenditure voluntarily incurred for commercial expediency, and it is immaterial if a third party also benefits thereby. Thus in Atherton Vs. British Insulated and Helsby Cables Ltd. [1925] 10 TC 155, it was held by the House of Lords that in order to claim a deduction, it is enough

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

RAJIV D. DAVE,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 21(1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal in ITA no 1038/Mum/2013 is allowed while the appeals in ITA no

Bench: S/Shri Amit Shukla () & Ramit Kochar ()

house property has to be assessed in the hands of the co-owners and person shall not be assessed as an Association of Persons (AOP). Thus, keeping in view of the factual matrix of the case whereby the society has admitted the three co-owners after the death of the Shri Harivallabh Parmanand Dave as legal heirs who have become

DR. DEVENDRA H. DAVE,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 11(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal in ITA no 1038/Mum/2013 is allowed while the appeals in ITA no

Bench: S/Shri Amit Shukla () & Ramit Kochar ()

house property has to be assessed in the hands of the co-owners and person shall not be assessed as an Association of Persons (AOP). Thus, keeping in view of the factual matrix of the case whereby the society has admitted the three co-owners after the death of the Shri Harivallabh Parmanand Dave as legal heirs who have become

ANUSUYA H. DAVE,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 21(1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal in ITA no 1038/Mum/2013 is allowed while the appeals in ITA no

Bench: S/Shri Amit Shukla () & Ramit Kochar ()

house property has to be assessed in the hands of the co-owners and person shall not be assessed as an Association of Persons (AOP). Thus, keeping in view of the factual matrix of the case whereby the society has admitted the three co-owners after the death of the Shri Harivallabh Parmanand Dave as legal heirs who have become

DCIT CIR 3(1), MUMBAI vs. VEMBU VAIDYANATHAN, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit, Shri Vembu Vaidyanathan, Circle-3(1), B-1602, Beaumonde बनाम/ Room No.607, 6Th Floor, Apartments, Appa Saheb Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400028 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaipv5796J Shri B. Yadagiri-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Vijay C. Kothari

section 45 of the Act. Route permits, for plying buses, issued by authorities under the Motor Vehicle Act, are property for the deprivation of which compensation is payable to the permit holder, hence, such route permits are capital assets in the hands of the transport company. Even, Stock Exchange Membership Card was held to be a capital asset. Thus

USHA MANOHAR SHETTY,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 18(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09 Usha Manohar Shetty, Acit 18(3) 132 Marble Arch बनाम/ R.No.209, 2Nd Floor, Senapati Bapa Tmarg, Piramal Chamber, Parel Vs. Mahim Mumbai -400012 Mumbai-400016 (Revenue) (Respondent) P.A. No.Abbps2235F Assessee By Dr. K. Shivaram(Ar) Revenue By Shri Santosh Mankoskar (Dr)

section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882(4 of 1882) Explanation- for the purpose of this sub-clause, a lease which provides for the extension of the term thereof by a further term or terms shall be deemed to be a lease for a term of not less than twelve years, if the aggregate of the term

ASST CIT 14(1), MUMBAI vs. ARPITA S. BAJLA, MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm)

155/- being the assessee's share in the capital gains on account of sale of l/3rd share in the flat in Orchid building by holding that the said property belonged to Shri Sachin Bajla, the husband of the assessee wholly and exclusively. That the facts of the case are that a flat in Orchid Building which was owned by Shri

RENU RATNAKAR BHATTACHARYA,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A), NFAC, DELHI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2016-17

section 54 for the amount of Rs. 16,34,243/-being Cost of Improvement for construction and structural repairs in order to make the new house property habitable, be added to the cost of purchase of New House Property and be allowed as Deduction u/s 54 3. Ground 3- 3. The Appellant relies on the Judgements

TRENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. C.I.T.-2(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Trent Ltd., V. Add. Cit – 2(3) Bombay House, 2Nd Floor, 24 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Homi Mody Street, Fort Mumbai Mumbai – 400 001 Pan: Aaacl1838J (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Cit – 2(3) V. M/S. Trent Ltd., Room No. 556, 5Th Floor Bombay House, 2Nd Floor, 24 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Homi Mody Street, Fort Mumbai - 400 020 Mumbai – 400 001 Pan: Aaacl1838J (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Trent Ltd., V. Dy. Cit – 2(3) Bombay House, 2Nd Floor, 24 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Homi Mody Street, Fort Mumbai Mumbai – 400 001 Pan: Aaacl1838J (Appellant) (Respondent)

155 and 156 of the Paper Book, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that in A.Y. 2006-07 the Assessing Officer had disregarded the disallowance offered by the assessee and computed disallowance as per Rule 8D of the I.T. Rules. On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) had held that a reasonable amount be disallowed under section 14A of the Act, giving

SHREE SWAMI SAMARTHA DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - WARD - 21, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ravish Sood(Jm)

155 ITR 120)(SC) and also in the case of Foss Electronics (263 ITR 125)(Raj). Accordingly, the Ld D.R submitted that the view taken by the AO in AY 2010- 11 and 2012-13 need not be followed in this year, as there is mistake of law. 8. The Ld D.R further submitted that the assessee has transferred

SULOCHANA SAIJAN MODI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh& Shri Om Prakash Kantsulochana Saijan Modi, Ito, A-501, Akar Apartment, National E- बनाम/ Film City Road, Malad Assessment Centre, Vs. East, Mumbai-400097. Mumbai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaopm0887F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Shashi Tulsian ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Ajay Singh, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 11/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 23/05/2023 आदेश / Order Per Om Prakash Kant - Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.01.2023 Passed By Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld.Cit(A)”] For Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2018-19. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: -

house as on 22.11.2010 at agreed cost of Rs.83,20,500/-. He referred to the copy of the allotment letter, which is available at page 7 to 10 of the Paper Book. He further submitted that at the time of booking, an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was paid vide cheque dated 11.11.2010. The property was got registered

SYNCHEM CHEMICALS (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 10(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

house property.” 6. “On the facts and circumstances of the case and in the law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of notional interest on interest free deposit received by the assessee on Ankleswar factory and Santacruz property.” 7.1. “On the facts and circumstance so the case and in the law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed

SHRI VIPUL OTARMAL JAIN ,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER 19.3.1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Jagadish

House, ……………. Appellant Mumbai – 400004 PAN : AABPJ3246L v/s Income Tax Officer, Ward – 19(3)(1) Piramal Chamber, Near Bharatmata Cinema, ……………. Respondent Parel, Mumbai – 400012 Assessee by : Shri Hansraj Sanghvi Revenue by : Shri Abhirama Karthikeyan, SR. DR Date of Hearing – 02/04/2026 Date of Order – 08/04/2026 O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The assessee has filed the present appeal

DCIT CEN 5 3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

155/- made by AO on account of 14A made by AO on account of 14A disallowance for expenses incurred towards earning llowance for expenses incurred towards earning llowance for expenses incurred towards earning exempt income without appreciating the fact that section 44 exempt income without appreciating the fact that section 44 exempt income without appreciating the fact that section

DCIT CEN 5 3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

155/- made by AO on account of 14A made by AO on account of 14A disallowance for expenses incurred towards earning llowance for expenses incurred towards earning llowance for expenses incurred towards earning exempt income without appreciating the fact that section 44 exempt income without appreciating the fact that section 44 exempt income without appreciating the fact that section

DCIT CEN 5 3, MUMBAI vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

155/- made by AO on account of 14A made by AO on account of 14A disallowance for expenses incurred towards earning llowance for expenses incurred towards earning llowance for expenses incurred towards earning exempt income without appreciating the fact that section 44 exempt income without appreciating the fact that section 44 exempt income without appreciating the fact that section