BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

344 results for “house property”+ Section 159clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi553Karnataka455Mumbai344Bangalore211Jaipur114Hyderabad80Cochin62Kolkata56Ahmedabad48Raipur40Telangana38Chennai36Lucknow35Chandigarh26Nagpur24Pune23Indore23Calcutta16Guwahati16Cuttack16Agra11SC10Rajkot9Surat8Rajasthan5Varanasi4Jodhpur3Allahabad3Amritsar2Orissa2D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1Jabalpur1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)67Section 14A60Addition to Income51Disallowance32Section 6829Deduction23Section 26322Section 14718Section 115J18Section 37(1)

RAJENDRA R. CHATURVEDI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 2(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5546/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Rajendra R. Chaturvedi, The Dcit, 4Th Floor, Shreepati Arcade, Central Circle-2(3), बनाम/ Premises No.1 & 2, Room No.803, 8Th Floor, Vs. August Kranti Marg, Old C.G.O. Annx. Bldg. Nana Chowk, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400036 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aczpc5041Q

Section 143(2)Section 24

section 23 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee further contended that it is providing additional services like watch and ward, additional load of electricity supply and other related services for which it has separately charged the tenant against which the assessee has incurred expenses. Therefore, the said activities come under the head "Income from business". 9. The question

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

Showing 1–20 of 344 · Page 1 of 18

...
17
Section 4015
Capital Gains15
ITA 769/MUM/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2004-2005

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

For Appellant: Mr.Ronak Doshi &For Respondent: Mr.S.N.Kabra.DR
Section 143(3)Section 145Section 32Section 35Section 80

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

SAI BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS,VASHI vs. PCIT-27, VASHI

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

ITA 1916/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalsaibuildersanddevelopers, Vs Pr.Cit-27, B12,Ashiana,Plotno.15, Roomno.401, Sector17,Vashi, 4Thflr,Towerno.6, Navi Mumbai-400703. Vashi Railway Stationcomplex,Vashi, Navimumbai-400703. Pan/Gir No. : Abbfs0092C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri.K.Gopal&Shri.OmKandalkar.ARFor Respondent: Shri.Hiren M Bhatt. Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

House Property income in respect of stock-in-trade during A.Y.2018-19 corresponding to F.Y.2017-18 as this year does not fall within the ambit of the provisions of section 23(5) of Income Tax Act. Factually speaking in this case, assessee has offered income in various assessment years, as under: A.Y Profits Offered to Sales % of Net tax on estimated recognized

DCIT-8(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. SHRI. ASHOK SANTU BHAVANI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is treated as allowed

ITA 6510/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Mr.Mehul Jain.Sr.DRFor Respondent: Mr.Ajit Jain.AR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54F

house because it has one common entrance, one kitchen, one electricity meter, one piped gas connection, one property tax bill and one Society bill. Even though, the property was purchased by way of two agreements, the appellant has received the same as one single unit. The appellant has also pointed out that the whole building has been constructed similarly. There

MANJU RAKESH JAIN,MUMBAI vs. PCIT, MUMBAI-20, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2280/MUM/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Manju Rakesh Jain, Pcit, Mumbai-20 704-A, Highland Park, Lokhanwala 418, 4Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Complex, Andheri West, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400058. Mumbai-400012. Pan No. Aaepj 9613 N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Joshi, CA
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 57

house property income if the same is allowable under the relevant provisions of the if the same is allowable under the relevant provisions of the if the same is allowable under the relevant provisions of the Act. In this case Act. In this case, interest income has been received from , interest income has been received from Sanyam Sanyam Sanyam Realtors

DCIT CENT. CIR. -4(1), CENTRAL RANGE-4, MUMBAI vs. M/S. RUNWAL DEVELOPERS P. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7048/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sood

Section 24

section 24(1) on account of repairs and accordingly, sum of Rs.3,75,15,126/- was offered as taxable income. The AO observed that the assessee, while computing its income from business has failed to apportion and disallow expenses debited to the profit and loss account which can be attributable to rental income earned by it. Since the assessee

RUNWAL DEVELOPEMENT P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 23, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No 4824/Mum/2014 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4824/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 80G

section 24(1) on account of repairs and accordingly, sum of Rs.3,75,15,126/- was offered as taxable income. The AO observed that the assessee, while computing its income from business has failed to apportion and disallow expenses debited to the profit and loss account which can be attributable to rental income earned by it. Since the assessee

PALM GROVE BEACH HOTELS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 1973/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Us With Delay Of 382 Days & 233 Days Respectively.

Section 143(3)

House Property‟ or not in view of the divergent views taken by the Tribunal. Thereafter, the very same issue was decided by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in several other cases which are listed in para 3 of the Memorandum of condonation of delay filed by the assessee. Accordingly, the assessee pleaded that the subsequent decisions of this

PUNIT DEORA TRUST,MUM vs. ITO, WARD-25(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6249/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Ms.Renu Jauhripunit Deora Trust, C/O Vs. Income Tax Department Mumbai – Punit International, 17, Fair Field Society, Opp. K.C. College Churchgate,Mumbai – 400020. Pan/Gir No. Aaatp1811E (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. S.L. Jain & Sh. Satish Jain, Revenue By Sh. Mahesh Pamnani, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 15.01.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 20.01.2025 आदेश / Order Per: Amit Shukla, Jm: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 25.10.2024 Passed By Addl./Jcit (A), Bhubaneshwar, In Relation To The Adjust Assessment Made U/S 143(1) For The Year 2018-19. 2. In Various Grounds Of Appeal, The Assessee Has Challenged Firstly, Not Granting Of Deduction U/S 24(A) To Rs.1,97,80,200/- As Claimed By The Assessee By Computing The Income From House

Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 161Section 24

section 161, it has been brought on record that consistently in all the past years as assessment year 2016-17 income has been assessed in the hands of specified beneficiaries under the head “house property” and in support following assessment years u/s 143(3) and 143(1) has been submitted: i. Order u/s 143(3) for AY 11-12 ii.Order

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -23(1), MUMBAI vs. LAXMI FINANCE AND LEASING COMPANIES CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue and Cross

ITA 4233/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 23(1)(a)

property 4 Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in not applying of the provisions of section 23(1)(a), 23(1)(b), 23(1)(c) of the I. T. Act 1961. 5 Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred

MAFATLAL INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 6(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6085/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Arati Vissanji &For Respondent: Nimesh Yadav
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

House Property whereas the amount received as service charges were to be taxed as Income from other sources. Against the said decision, the department was in further appeal before this Tribunal wherein the appeal got dismissed due to low tax effect. The assessee, in the cross-objections, is aggrieved by non-adjudication of Ground Nos.20 to 22 of the appeal

MAFATLAL INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 6(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6963/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Arati Vissanji &For Respondent: Nimesh Yadav
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

House Property whereas the amount received as service charges were to be taxed as Income from other sources. Against the said decision, the department was in further appeal before this Tribunal wherein the appeal got dismissed due to low tax effect. The assessee, in the cross-objections, is aggrieved by non-adjudication of Ground Nos.20 to 22 of the appeal

MAFATLAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-6(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4369/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Arati Vissanji &For Respondent: Nimesh Yadav
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

House Property whereas the amount received as service charges were to be taxed as Income from other sources. Against the said decision, the department was in further appeal before this Tribunal wherein the appeal got dismissed due to low tax effect. The assessee, in the cross-objections, is aggrieved by non-adjudication of Ground Nos.20 to 22 of the appeal

ACIT 10(1), MUMBAI vs. KHANDELWAL ESTATE P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed and the appeal of the assessee i

ITA 5520/MUM/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.5215 & 5521/M/2010, Ita No.5492/M/2011 & "नधा"रण वष" M/S. Khandelwal Estates Pvt. Acit 10(1), Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Sani Arma, Mumbai -400 020 बनाम/Vs. Raut Lane, बनाम बनाम बनाम Near Isckon Temple, Juhu, Vile Parle (West), Mumbai – 400 049 Pan: Aaack2613E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Naresh Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Vinita J. Menon, D.R

159, CST Road, बनाम/Vs. बनाम बनाम बनाम Room No.455, Kalina, Aayakar Bhavan, Santacruz (E), M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 098 Mumbai-400 020 PAN: AAACK2613E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) ITA No.5215 & 5521/M/2010 & Others 2 M/s. Khandelwal Estates Pvt. Ltd. Present for: Assessee by : Shri Naresh Jain, A.R. Revenue by : Smt. Vinita J. Menon, D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date

KHANDELWAL ESTATE (P) LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 10(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed and the appeal of the assessee i

ITA 5492/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.5215 & 5521/M/2010, Ita No.5492/M/2011 & "नधा"रण वष" M/S. Khandelwal Estates Pvt. Acit 10(1), Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Sani Arma, Mumbai -400 020 बनाम/Vs. Raut Lane, बनाम बनाम बनाम Near Isckon Temple, Juhu, Vile Parle (West), Mumbai – 400 049 Pan: Aaack2613E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Naresh Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Vinita J. Menon, D.R

159, CST Road, बनाम/Vs. बनाम बनाम बनाम Room No.455, Kalina, Aayakar Bhavan, Santacruz (E), M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 098 Mumbai-400 020 PAN: AAACK2613E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) ITA No.5215 & 5521/M/2010 & Others 2 M/s. Khandelwal Estates Pvt. Ltd. Present for: Assessee by : Shri Naresh Jain, A.R. Revenue by : Smt. Vinita J. Menon, D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date

KHANDELWAL ESTATE P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 10(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed and the appeal of the assessee i

ITA 4171/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.5215 & 5521/M/2010, Ita No.5492/M/2011 & "नधा"रण वष" M/S. Khandelwal Estates Pvt. Acit 10(1), Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Sani Arma, Mumbai -400 020 बनाम/Vs. Raut Lane, बनाम बनाम बनाम Near Isckon Temple, Juhu, Vile Parle (West), Mumbai – 400 049 Pan: Aaack2613E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Naresh Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Vinita J. Menon, D.R

159, CST Road, बनाम/Vs. बनाम बनाम बनाम Room No.455, Kalina, Aayakar Bhavan, Santacruz (E), M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 098 Mumbai-400 020 PAN: AAACK2613E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) ITA No.5215 & 5521/M/2010 & Others 2 M/s. Khandelwal Estates Pvt. Ltd. Present for: Assessee by : Shri Naresh Jain, A.R. Revenue by : Smt. Vinita J. Menon, D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date

KHANDELWAL ESTATES P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 10(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed and the appeal of the assessee i

ITA 5215/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.5215 & 5521/M/2010, Ita No.5492/M/2011 & "नधा"रण वष" M/S. Khandelwal Estates Pvt. Acit 10(1), Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Sani Arma, Mumbai -400 020 बनाम/Vs. Raut Lane, बनाम बनाम बनाम Near Isckon Temple, Juhu, Vile Parle (West), Mumbai – 400 049 Pan: Aaack2613E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Naresh Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Vinita J. Menon, D.R

159, CST Road, बनाम/Vs. बनाम बनाम बनाम Room No.455, Kalina, Aayakar Bhavan, Santacruz (E), M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 098 Mumbai-400 020 PAN: AAACK2613E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) ITA No.5215 & 5521/M/2010 & Others 2 M/s. Khandelwal Estates Pvt. Ltd. Present for: Assessee by : Shri Naresh Jain, A.R. Revenue by : Smt. Vinita J. Menon, D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date

ACIT 10(1), MUMBAI vs. KHANDELWAL ESTATE P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed and the appeal of the assessee i

ITA 5521/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.5215 & 5521/M/2010, Ita No.5492/M/2011 & "नधा"रण वष" M/S. Khandelwal Estates Pvt. Acit 10(1), Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Sani Arma, Mumbai -400 020 बनाम/Vs. Raut Lane, बनाम बनाम बनाम Near Isckon Temple, Juhu, Vile Parle (West), Mumbai – 400 049 Pan: Aaack2613E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Naresh Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Vinita J. Menon, D.R

159, CST Road, बनाम/Vs. बनाम बनाम बनाम Room No.455, Kalina, Aayakar Bhavan, Santacruz (E), M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 098 Mumbai-400 020 PAN: AAACK2613E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) ITA No.5215 & 5521/M/2010 & Others 2 M/s. Khandelwal Estates Pvt. Ltd. Present for: Assessee by : Shri Naresh Jain, A.R. Revenue by : Smt. Vinita J. Menon, D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date

SUNDIAL INVESTMENTS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 3(3), MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5674/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5674/Mum/2012 & M/S Sundial Investments Pvt. बनधम/ The Asstt. Commissioner Of Ltd, Income Tax-Circle 3(3), Vs. 127 Jolly Maker Chambers, Mumbai. Nariman Points, Mumbai-400021 स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ Pan : Aaacs9845C अपीऱार्थी ओर से / Assessee By Shri Anuj Kishnadwalla प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Revenue By Shri Love Kumar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20.6.2016 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement :30.06.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, A. M: These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee & Directed Against The Two Separate Orders Of Ld.Cit(A) Dated 15.5.2012 & 21.10.2013 & They Pertain To The Assessment Years 2009-10 & 2010-11. Since, The Issues Involved In These Appeals Are Identical / Inter-Connected, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience, They Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. Appeal Wise Adjudication Is Given In The Succeeding Paragraphs.

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

house property. Accordingly, ground no.1 is allowed. 7 5674/Mum/2012 7562/Mum/2013 8. Grounds No.2,3,4 and 5 relates to confirmation of disallowance made u/s 14A r.w.rule 8D of the Rules. 9. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO found that the assessee has claimed dividend income of Rs.16,01,752/- which was exempt under section

SUNDIAL INVESTMENTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 3(3), MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7562/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5674/Mum/2012 & M/S Sundial Investments Pvt. बनधम/ The Asstt. Commissioner Of Ltd, Income Tax-Circle 3(3), Vs. 127 Jolly Maker Chambers, Mumbai. Nariman Points, Mumbai-400021 स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ Pan : Aaacs9845C अपीऱार्थी ओर से / Assessee By Shri Anuj Kishnadwalla प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Revenue By Shri Love Kumar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20.6.2016 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement :30.06.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, A. M: These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee & Directed Against The Two Separate Orders Of Ld.Cit(A) Dated 15.5.2012 & 21.10.2013 & They Pertain To The Assessment Years 2009-10 & 2010-11. Since, The Issues Involved In These Appeals Are Identical / Inter-Connected, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience, They Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. Appeal Wise Adjudication Is Given In The Succeeding Paragraphs.

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

house property. Accordingly, ground no.1 is allowed. 7 5674/Mum/2012 7562/Mum/2013 8. Grounds No.2,3,4 and 5 relates to confirmation of disallowance made u/s 14A r.w.rule 8D of the Rules. 9. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO found that the assessee has claimed dividend income of Rs.16,01,752/- which was exempt under section