K. RAHEJA CORPORATE SERVICES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 14(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ravish Soodk. Raheja Corporate Services Acit-14(2)(1), Room No. 432, 4Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. C-30, G- Block, Opp. Sidbi, Bkc, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Bandra, Mumbai-400 051 Road, Mumbai-400 020. Vs. Pan: Aabcn 9309B Appellant Respondent K. Raheja Corporate Pvt. Ltd., Dcit- Central Circle 4(2), Room No. 1918, 19Th Plot No. C-30, G-Block, Opp. Sidbi, Bkc, Bandra – (E), Floor, Air India Building, Mumbai-400 051 Nariman Point, Mumbai- Vs. 400 021. Pan: Aaacp0522B Appellant Respondent Dcit, Central Circle - M/S K. Raheja Corp. Pvt. (2)(1), Central Range -4 Ltd., Plot No. C-30, Block -G, Pr.Cit (C)-2 Bkc, Bandra (Eest), Room No. 1918, 19Th Mumbai-400 051 Vs. Floor, Air India Building, Pan: Aaacp0522B Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021. Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Madhur Aggrawal (Ar) Revenue By : Shri. Shiddaramappa (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 12.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.10.2021

156 ITR 11 (Bom), we respectfully follow the view taken by the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT vs. Neha Builders (2008) 296 ITR 661 (Guj). In fact, we find that the issue as to whether the ALV of a property held by an assessee as stock-in-trade of its business as that

DCIT CC 4(2), MUMBAI vs. K RAHEJA COPR PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ravish Soodk. Raheja Corporate Services Acit-14(2)(1), Room No. 432, 4Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. C-30, G- Block, Opp. Sidbi, Bkc, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Bandra, Mumbai-400 051 Road, Mumbai-400 020. Vs. Pan: Aabcn 9309B Appellant Respondent K. Raheja Corporate Pvt. Ltd., Dcit- Central Circle 4(2), Room No. 1918, 19Th Plot No. C-30, G-Block, Opp. Sidbi, Bkc, Bandra – (E), Floor, Air India Building, Mumbai-400 051 Nariman Point, Mumbai- Vs. 400 021. Pan: Aaacp0522B Appellant Respondent Dcit, Central Circle - M/S K. Raheja Corp. Pvt. (2)(1), Central Range -4 Ltd., Plot No. C-30, Block -G, Pr.Cit (C)-2 Bkc, Bandra (Eest), Room No. 1918, 19Th Mumbai-400 051 Vs. Floor, Air India Building, Pan: Aaacp0522B Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021. Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Madhur Aggrawal (Ar) Revenue By : Shri. Shiddaramappa (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 12.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.10.2021

156 ITR 11 (Bom), we respectfully follow the view taken by the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT vs. Neha Builders (2008) 296 ITR 661 (Guj). In fact, we find that the issue as to whether the ALV of a property held by an assessee as stock-in-trade of its business as that

MILAN THEATRES PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO ,CIRCLE -12(3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Blem/S. Milan Theatres Pvt. Ltd., V. Income Tax Officer – Circle – 12(3)(4) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Cts 156, D.B. House Yashodham Mumbai - 400020 Goregaon (E), Mumbai -400063 Pan: Aafcm6714R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ritu Kamal Kishor Department By Shri Neha Thakur

156, D.B. House Yashodham Mumbai - 400020 Goregaon (E), Mumbai -400063 PAN: AAFCM6714R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Ritu Kamal Kishor Department by Shri Neha Thakur Date of Hearing : 31.01.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 31.03.2022 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM) 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income

DCIT 27(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. M/S GOPURAM DEVELOPERS , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenues dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

156 ITR 11 (Bom), we respectfully follow the view taken by the Honble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT vs. Neha Builders (2008) 296 ITR 661 (Guj). In fact, we find that the issue as to whether the ALV of a property held by an assessee as stock-in-trade of its business as that

DCIT, CIR-3(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BENGAL SHAPOORJI HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

156 ITR 11 (Bom), we respectfully follow the view taken by the Hon‟ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT vs. Neha Builders (2008) 296 ITR 661 (Guj). In fact, we find that the issue as to whether the ALV of a property held by an assessee as stock-in-trade of its business as that

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)

house property, interest and capital gain. During course of assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 143(2) of 1961 Act, the assessee was asked to furnish details of long term capital gain and exemption claimed u/s 54F of the Act. The assessee submitted copies of purchase deed of new residential property in respect of which assessee had claimed exemption

DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. BENGAL SHAPOORJI HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PVT LTD.,, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh () & Shri Ravish Sood () Dcit, Circle-3(1)(1), M/S Bengal Shapoorji Housing Room No. 628, 6Th Floor, Vs. Development Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, S.P. Centre, 41-44, Mumbai – 400 020 Minoo Desai Marg, Mumbai - 400005 Pan No. Aaccm1595P (Revenue) (Assessee) Assessee By : Dr. K.Shivaram, Sr. Advocate Revenue By : Shri Tharian Oommen, D.R Date Of Hearing : 10/03/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/03/2021

156 ITR 11 (Bom), we respectfully follow the view taken by the Hon‟ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT vs. Neha Builders (2008) 296 ITR 661 (Guj). In fact, we find that the issue as to whether the ALV of a property held by an assessee as stock-in-trade of its business as that

SHRI. SAJAL RADHIKAMOHAN KAR,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-27 (3) , MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood () Shri Sajal Radhikamohan Kar Acit,Circle -27(3) 503, Swastik Solitaire, Chadve Vs. Tower 6, Vashi Railway Chs, Sion Trombay Road, Station Complex, Chember, Mumbai – 400071 Navi Mumbai – 400 703 Pan No. Aadpk3367P (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee By : Shri Reepal G.Tralshawala, A.R Revenue By : Shri Gurbinder Singh, D.R Date Of Hearing : 03/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 01/09/2021

section. 11. The concepts of the "assessee", "own", "owned" "owner", "ownership", "co- owner", "owner of house property" or "ownership of property" as elaborated in ITA No.6476/Mum/2019 AY. 2015-16 15 Shri Sajal Radhikamohan kar Vs. ACIT, Circle-27(3) ss. 22 to 27 and 32 of the IT Act, are very much inter-linked and connected for granting the benefit

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

ACIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. SAMIR NARIAN BHOJWANI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed and the cross-objection filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.331/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बिधम/ Acit-Cc-3(4) Central Shri Samir Narain Bhojwani 1St Floor, Samir Complex, St. Range-3 Vs. Andrews Road, Opp, Holy Room No. 401, 4Th Floor, Family Hospital, Bandra Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- (W), Mumbai-400050. 400020. Co. No.134/Mum/2016 (Arising Out Of Ita. No. 331/Mum/2015) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बिधम/ Shri Samir Narain Bhojwani Acit-Cc-24 & 26 1St Floor, Samir Complex, St. Room No. 401, 4Th Floor, Vs. Andrews Road, Opp, Holy Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Family Hospital, Bandra 400020. (W), Mumbai-400050. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. :Aabpb9150H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6807/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिधम/ Acit Cc-24 & 26 Central Shri Samir Narain Bhojwani 1St Floor, Samir Complex, St. Range-5 Vs. Andrews Road, Opp. Holy Room No.404, 4Th Floor Family Hospital, Bandra Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- (W), Mumbai-400050. 400020. Co. No.41/Mum/2016 (Arising Out Of Ita. No. 6153/Mum/2014) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बिधम/ Shri Samir Narain Bhojwani Acit Cc-24 & 26 Central 1St Floor, Samir Complex, St. Range-5 Vs. Andrews Road, Opp. Holy Room No.404, 4Th Floor Family Hospital, Bandra Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-

House Property', Further, the A.O. has on page 20 of the assessment order stated that income can be considered under s. 56 only if primary letting is- of plant, machinery and furniture. The A.O. has stated ‘that sec, 56(2)(iii) contemplates that the prominent object should be letting of machinery, plant or furniture. However, this has been considered

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

DCIT CC 3(4) CE RG 3, MUMBAI vs. SAMIR NARAIN BHOJWANI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

House Property', Further, the A.O. has on page 20 of the assessment order stated that income can be considered under s. 56 only if primary letting is- of plant, machinery and furniture. The A.O. has stated „that sec, 56(2)(iii) contemplates that the prominent object should be letting of machinery, plant or furniture. However, this has been considered

RAMESH BUILDERS (INDIA),MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee-Ramesh Builders(India) in ITA N0

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1797/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Ramesh Builders (India), Income Tax बनाम/ 9, Dhiraj Chambers, Officer,12(1)(2),Aayakar V. 9, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Bhavan,M.K. Road, Fort,Mumbai – 400001. Mumbai. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaafr4655E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

156 ITR 509. The Supreme Court reiterated the same principle by relying upon the judgment in Addanki Narayanappa v. Bhaskara Krishnappa AIR 1966 SC 1300. The Supreme Court held that what is envisaged on the retirement of a partner is merely his right to realise his interest and to receive its value. What is realised is the interest which

RAMESH BUILDERS,MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee-Ramesh Builders(India) in ITA N0

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1797/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Ramesh Builders (India), Income Tax बनाम/ 9, Dhiraj Chambers, Officer,12(1)(2),Aayakar V. 9, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Bhavan,M.K. Road, Fort,Mumbai – 400001. Mumbai. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaafr4655E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

156 ITR 509. The Supreme Court reiterated the same principle by relying upon the judgment in Addanki Narayanappa v. Bhaskara Krishnappa AIR 1966 SC 1300. The Supreme Court held that what is envisaged on the retirement of a partner is merely his right to realise his interest and to receive its value. What is realised is the interest which

SEEMA HEERA,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) (IT) - 2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judicialmember & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11

house property has been stated to be satisfied by the Ld. Assessing Officer in his remand report. Admittedly, assessee had failed to claim the benefit in her return but made all the efforts by furnishing the required details with corroborative documentary evidences before the First Appellate Authority as well as before the Ld. Assessing Officer in the remand proceedings. These

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)

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 effect

SUVINO TELEVIDEO,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 25(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in the above terms

House Property and\nIncome from Short-term capital gain.\n\nHENCE APPEALED\n\n2. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete, rectify and modify any\nof the grounds of appeals before or at the time of hearing the appeal.\"\n\n9. We have heard the ld. AR on behalf of the assessee who would argue that\nboth the lower

THE ACIT CIR 6(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

property which forms part of the block of assets will cease to be so. Therefore, the disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 45,681 made by the AO is deleted. As a result, ground No. 4 raised in assessee‟s appeal is allowed. 30. The issue arising in ground no.5, raised in assessee‟s appeal, is pertaining to the adjustment