RELATIONSHIP PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Relationship Properties Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited Income Tax, Circle 2(3)(1), 41-44, Sp Centre, Minoo V Mumbai Desai Marg, Colaba, S Mumbai – 400005. Pan/Gir No. Aadcr8947D (Appellant) : (Respondent)

section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act'), issued without complying with the procedure laid by the Central Board of Direct Taxes in this regard. 2. Addition to revenue of Rs. 47,26,83,699 2.1 The learned CIT(A) [NFAC] erred in not deleting the complete addition made in the original assessment order, since

M/S. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT (IT)1(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blestandard Chartered Bank V. Acit – Range-1(3) Taxation Department, 23-25 Scindia House, Ballard Estate M.G. Road, 3Rd Floor N.M. Marg, Mumbai - 400038 Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aabcs4681D (Appellant) (Respondent) Adit (It)– 2(3) V. Standard Chartered Bank Room No. 120, 1St Floor Taxation Department, 23-25 Scindia House, Ballard Estate M.G. Road, 3Rd Floor N.M. Marg, Mumbai - 400038 Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aabcs4681D (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri P.J. Pardiwala & Assessee Represented By : Shri Fenil Bhatt Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash Department Represented By :

property of the Housing Board. It was held that the expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively on the welfare of the employees and, therefore, constituted legitimate business expenditure. As the assessee company acquired no ownership rights in the tenements, this Court said that the expenditure was incurred merely with a view to carry on the business of the company more

DCIT CEN CIR 1(2), MUMBAI vs. HIRANANDNANI PALACE GARDENS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negi

156] is relating to interest expenditure identifiable with the project. In assessee’s case, dispute is not with respect to interest as the assessee itself has added the interest cost to the work-in-progress and claimed it in subsequent year in the proportion of revenue offered. Thus, the facts in assessee’s case are quite distinguishable and the decision

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

3), dated 12.10.2017 assessed the income of the assessee-company at Rs. 52,40,35,118/- under the normal provisions and „book profit‟ under section 115JB at Rs. 63,76,44,580/-. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). Although the CIT(A) found favor with the assessee‟s claim that the disallowance under

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

3), dated 12.10.2017 assessed the income of the assessee-company at Rs. 52,40,35,118/- under the normal provisions and „book profit‟ under section 115JB at Rs. 63,76,44,580/-. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). Although the CIT(A) found favor with the assessee‟s claim that the disallowance under

M/S OSHO DEVELOPERS ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-32 , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ravish Soodita Nos.2372 & 1860/Mum/2019 (Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16) M/S Osho Developers Acit-32, Mumbai Bldg. No. C-11, 3Rd Floor, Osho, Plot No. 1534A, New Link Road, Vs. Room No. 306, Devki Nagar, Borivali (W), Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400 092 Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051 Pan – Aabfo2984J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Dr. K. Shivram, Senior Advocate & Ms.Neelam Jadhav, A.R Respondent By: Shri Uodal Raj Singh, D.R Date Of Hearing: 06.10.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.11.2020 O R D E R Per Ravish Sood, Jm The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Passed By The Cit(A)-44, Mumbai, Dated 08.02.2019, Which In Turn Arises From The Assessment Orders Passed Under Sec.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short „Act‟), Dated 02.12.2016 & 30.11.2017 For A.Y. 2014-15 & A.Y. 2015-16, Respectively. As The Issues Involved In The Captioned Appeals Are Inextricably Interlinked Or In Fact Interwoven, The Same Are Therefore Being Taken Up & Disposed Off By Way Of A Consolidated Order. We Shall First Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y. 2014-15 Wherein The Impugned Order Has Been Assailed Before Us On The Following Effective Grounds Of Appeal:

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

CROMPTON GREAVES LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT -6, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company in ITA no

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kochar"ी शैल" कुमार यादव, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी "ी रिमत कोचर, लेखाकार सद"य के सम" । आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1994/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2836/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S Crompton Greaves बनाम/ Cit – 6,Mumbai, Ltd.,6Th Floor, C.G. House, 5Th Floor, V. Dr. A.B. Road, Worli, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 030. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacc3840K .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pradeep N. Kapasi Revenue By : Shri C.W. Angolkar सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 29-10-2015 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01-02-2016

156 ITR 585(SC). The CIT noticed from the schedule 16 read with note 33 to schedule 13, that ITA 1994Mum/13 & ITA 2836/Mum/14 6 the expenditure of Rs. 17.72 crores claimed by the assessee company was nothing but “provisions” for expenditure. The CIT observed that the A.O. failed to make relevant and meaningful enquiry to the fact that liabilities

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

M/S. ATUL PROJECTS INDIA P LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2) (NOW JURIDICTION WITH DC CC 2(4)), MUMBAI

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

property in execution of a decree shall be applicable in its-entirety except such provision therein which may not be practicable to be applied. 16. The case of the revenue is that the expression 'so far as may be apply' indicates that it is not expected to follow the provisions of Section 142, sub-sections 2 and 3 of Section

M/S. ATUL PROJECTS INDIA PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2), ( NOW JURIDICTION WITH DC CC-2(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

property in execution of a decree shall be applicable in its-entirety except such provision therein which may not be practicable to be applied. 16. The case of the revenue is that the expression 'so far as may be apply' indicates that it is not expected to follow the provisions of Section 142, sub-sections 2 and 3 of Section

M/S. ATUL PROJECTS INDIA PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2), ( NOW JURIDICTION WITH DC CC-2(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

property in execution of a decree shall be applicable in its-entirety except such provision therein which may not be practicable to be applied. 16. The case of the revenue is that the expression 'so far as may be apply' indicates that it is not expected to follow the provisions of Section 142, sub-sections 2 and 3 of Section

M/S. ATUL PROJECTS INDIA PVT LTD.,,MIMBAI vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2), ( NOW JURIDICTION WITH DC CC-2(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

property in execution of a decree shall be applicable in its-entirety except such provision therein which may not be practicable to be applied. 16. The case of the revenue is that the expression 'so far as may be apply' indicates that it is not expected to follow the provisions of Section 142, sub-sections 2 and 3 of Section

M/S. ATUL PROJECTS INDIA PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2), ( NOW JURIDICTION WITH DC CC-2(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

property in execution of a decree shall be applicable in its-entirety except such provision therein which may not be practicable to be applied. 16. The case of the revenue is that the expression 'so far as may be apply' indicates that it is not expected to follow the provisions of Section 142, sub-sections 2 and 3 of Section

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

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 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

OLEANDER FARMS P.LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 47, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Transfer Of File To The Ao Of The Assessee. 3. Rival Contentions Have Been Heard & Record Perused.

Housing Development Company (supra) has, however, been pleased to express different view, however, as per the established proposition of law, we are bound to follow the decision of Hon‟ble Jurisdictional Delhi High Court and since, the Hon‟ble Karnataka High Court and the Hon‟ble Rajasthan High Court have expressed different views on the issue, the view favourable

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 ()

section 43CA of the Act. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by way of raising grounds as reproduced above. 3. We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant material on record. 4. Regarding the ground No. one and two of the appeal, we find 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

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