DCIT ,CC 8(2), MUMBAI vs. SKYLINE PRASHASTI, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailita Nos.1964/Mum/2021 (A.Y.2013-14) M/S Skyline Prashasti Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As M/S Sky Star) Income Tax-Cc-8(2) Skyline Oasis, Premier 6Th Floor, Room No. 658, Road, Nr. Vidyavihar Aaykar Bhawan, Station, Ghatkoper (W) Maharshi Karve Road Mumbai – 400086 Mumbai - 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Abcfs0618M Appellant .. Respondent Ita Nos.2451/Mum/2021 (A.Y.2013-14) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Skyline Prashasti Income Tax-Cc-8(2) Skyline Oasis, Premier 6Th Floor, Room No. 658, Road, Vidyavihar (W) Aaykar Bhawan, Mumbai – 400086 Maharshi Karve Road Mumbai - 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Abcfs0618M Appellant .. Respondent

house property on Similarly provisions of section 24. 2nd proviso and explanation to section 24 provided for deduction of interest incurred on the borrowed capital for the construction of the property and no restriction of any kind whatsoever has been provided in the said section. After carefully going through the facts of the case and arguments of both the parties

M/S. SKYLINE PRASHAASTI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENT. CIR 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailita Nos.1964/Mum/2021 (A.Y.2013-14) M/S Skyline Prashasti Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As M/S Sky Star) Income Tax-Cc-8(2) Skyline Oasis, Premier 6Th Floor, Room No. 658, Road, Nr. Vidyavihar Aaykar Bhawan, Station, Ghatkoper (W) Maharshi Karve Road Mumbai – 400086 Mumbai - 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Abcfs0618M Appellant .. Respondent Ita Nos.2451/Mum/2021 (A.Y.2013-14) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Skyline Prashasti Income Tax-Cc-8(2) Skyline Oasis, Premier 6Th Floor, Room No. 658, Road, Vidyavihar (W) Aaykar Bhawan, Mumbai – 400086 Maharshi Karve Road Mumbai - 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Abcfs0618M Appellant .. Respondent

house property on Similarly provisions of section 24. 2nd proviso and explanation to section 24 provided for deduction of interest incurred on the borrowed capital for the construction of the property and no restriction of any kind whatsoever has been provided in the said section. After carefully going through the facts of the case and arguments of both the parties

NAVBHARAT POTTERIES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CIRCLE 7(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in above\nterms

house property” in the preceding years, but after\nthe expiry of the license period of 36 months the licensee had vacated the property and\nconveyed its intention of not getting the license agreement renewed any further. We further\nfind from a perusal of the records before us that it is not the case of the department that\nafter the property

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

MORA] FINANZ CORPORATION,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRLE - 5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as per above direction

Bench: Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

House Property. The appellant cannot force the AO to adopt a particular method of estimating the ALV. Therefore, this argument is also rejected. 5.6. The appellant has also submitted that the premises in question remained vacant throughout the year and hence the appellant is eligible for vacancy allowance under proviso to section 23(1) of the Act as against

MORAJ FINANZ CORPORATION,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as per above direction

Bench: Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

House Property. The appellant cannot force the AO to adopt a particular method of estimating the ALV. Therefore, this argument is also rejected. 5.6. The appellant has also submitted that the premises in question remained vacant throughout the year and hence the appellant is eligible for vacancy allowance under proviso to section 23(1) of the Act as against

MORAJ FINANZ CORPORATION,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCLT CENTRAL CIRLE - 5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as per above direction

Bench: Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

House Property. The appellant cannot force the AO to adopt a particular method of estimating the ALV. Therefore, this argument is also rejected. 5.6. The appellant has also submitted that the premises in question remained vacant throughout the year and hence the appellant is eligible for vacancy allowance under proviso to section 23(1) of the Act as against

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

SMT. TEJAL KAUSHAL SHAH ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, 25(1)(5), MUMBAI

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

Bench: MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member), SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

house of the assessee is purchased jointly with his wife. In the case of CIT v. Natarajan [2006] 287 ITR 271/ 154 Taxman 399 (Mad.), though this case was decided in relation to Section 54 of the Act, the said Section is pari materia of Section 54F(1) of the Act. Likewise, the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case

ACIT CIRCLE 4(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. MAGNUS PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and\nCross Objection filed by the assessee is allowed

house property. Therefore, the grounds raised in\nappeal are allowed\n7.0.\nAccordingly, the appeal of the Appellant for the AY 2016-17 is allowed.”\nIt is evident from the decision of ld. CIT(A) as reproduced supra\nthat the similar issue on identical fact has been consistently decided by\nthe ITAT in favour of the assessee from assessment year

CORONATE CONSTRUCTIONS,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2017-18

house property".? 8. Undisputedly assessee company has got OC for B wing on 4/6/2013 and in respect of this wing the closing stock has been shown at Rs.3,76,84,630/- as the unit of B wing was ready on 4/6/2013 more than three financial years have come into picture in relation to the year under consideration i.e. A.Y.2017-18

HERCULES HOISTS LIMITED,RAIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Prabhash Shankar, Am

section 23(1)(a) of the Act is erroneous and contrary to the provisions of the law. Total Tax Effect – Rs.4,42,101/- Hercules Hoists Limited vs. Dy. CIT 3. As could be seen from the ground raised, it is in two parts. Firstly, assessee’s primary issue is claim of deduction of vacancy allowance

HERCULES HOISTS LIMITED,RAIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Prabhash Shankar, Am

section 23(1)(a) of the Act is erroneous and contrary to the provisions of the law. Total Tax Effect – Rs.4,42,101/- Hercules Hoists Limited vs. Dy. CIT 3. As could be seen from the ground raised, it is in two parts. Firstly, assessee’s primary issue is claim of deduction of vacancy allowance

HERCULES HOISTS LIMITED,RAIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Prabhash Shankar, Am

section 23(1)(a) of the Act is erroneous and contrary to the provisions of the law. Total Tax Effect – Rs.4,42,101/- Hercules Hoists Limited vs. Dy. CIT 3. As could be seen from the ground raised, it is in two parts. Firstly, assessee’s primary issue is claim of deduction of vacancy allowance

HERCULES HOISTS LIMITED,RAIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Prabhash Shankar, Am

section 23(1)(a) of the Act is erroneous and contrary to the provisions of the law. Total Tax Effect – Rs.4,42,101/- Hercules Hoists Limited vs. Dy. CIT 3. As could be seen from the ground raised, it is in two parts. Firstly, assessee’s primary issue is claim of deduction of vacancy allowance

DCIT(E)-2(1), MUMBAI vs. NEHRU CENTRE, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Bledcit (E) – 2(1) V. Nehru Centre Room No. 519, 5Th Floor Discovery Of India Building Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug 13Th Floor, Dr. Annie Besant Road Worli, Mumbai - 400018 Mumbai – 400 012 Pan: Aaatn2536J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dilip Thakkar Department By : Shri Dilipkumar Shah

160], raising artistic tastes is also an educational purpose. Education, in the context of the law of charity as defined under section 2(15) of the Act is not limited to teaching in the narrow sense raising the artistic taste of the country by 6 Nehru Centre public performances, dramas, music or show would be in the nature of education

ABNCO LOGISTICS PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO 4(1)(3), MUMBAI

Appeal is dismissed

house property income was declared by the appellant. It is also seen that there is no increase in the investment in the commercial property at Hinjawadi during the F.Y. 2013-14. When, at the first place the appellant had not claimed any interest expenditure on unsecured loans in connection, with the property at Hinjawadi in F.Y. 2012-13 then there

ACIT CIRCLE 4 3 1, MUMBAI vs. MAGNUS PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and Cross Objection filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

house property. Therefore, the grounds raised in appeal are allowed 7.0. Accordingly, the appeal of the Appellant for the AY 2016-17 is allowed.” 7. It is evident from the decision of ld. CIT(A) as reproduced supra that the similar issue on identical fact has been consistently decided by the ITAT in favour of the assessee from assessment year