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

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

NILUFER SAYED,MUMBAI vs. ITO - 21(1)(3), MUMBAI

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.3474/Mum/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Nilufer Sayed Income Tax Officer-25(3)(5) बना A-601, Leela Sagar Mumbai. म/ Yari Road, Versova Vs. Andheri West, Mumbai-400 061. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Cgtps-8161-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Stany Saldanha-Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Tharian Oommen- Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 19/01/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 25/01/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

property." If the assessee has within a period of one year before or two years after the date on which the transfer took place purchased, or has within a period of three years after that date constructed a residential house, then, instead of the capital gain being charged to income-tax as income of the previous year in which

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

M/S. ISMAIL ABDULKARIM BALWA,MUMBAI vs. THE DCIT RG 24(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, as above

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singh: (A.Y : 2005-06) Mr. Ismail Abdulkarim Balwa Vs. Dcit, Range-24(3), Mumbai A.K. Industrial Estate, (Respondent) Opp. A.K. Tower, S.V. Road, Goregaon (West), Mumbai - 62 Pan : Aabpb7570M (Appellant) : (A.Y : 2005-06) Mr. Hussein Abdulkarim Balwa Vs. Dcit, Range-24(3), Mumbai A.K. Industrial Estate, (Respondent) Opp. A.K. Tower, S.V. Road, Goregaon (West), Mumbai - 62 Pan : Aabpb7572K (Appellant)

160 ITR 920 (SC) goes to say that even in case where assessee failed to claim a benefit, the same would not relieve the income-tax authorities of the duty to allow a particular benefit which is otherwise available to the assessee in law. Therefore, the mere factum of assessee declaring income from the co- ownership property as ‘business income

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

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. 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

NATIONAL REALTY P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 5(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain M/S. National Realty P. Ltd. Dcit, Circle 5(2) 11-16 Ashoka Shopping Centre Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Lakmanya Tilak Marg, Near M.K. Road G.T. Hospital, Mumbai 400001 Mumbai 400020 Pan – Aaacn1433D Appellant Respondent

section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 24.01.2014 wherein the assessee’s loss was assessed at `3,28,37,661/-; in view of the AO treating the assessee’s income of `56,97,031/- from amenities and service charges as exigible to tax under the head ‘income from house property’ and not as ‘business income or income from

INDOKEM LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT CR 6, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

house property and there could not have been any further additions. 18. Since the provisions of fixation of annual rent under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act are pari materia of Section 23 of the Act, we are inclined to accept the aforesaid view of the Calcutta High Court in Satya Co. Ltd. (supra) that in such circumstances, the annual value

INDOKEM LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT CR 6, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

house property and there could not have been any further additions. 18. Since the provisions of fixation of annual rent under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act are pari materia of Section 23 of the Act, we are inclined to accept the aforesaid view of the Calcutta High Court in Satya Co. Ltd. (supra) that in such circumstances, the annual value

INDOKEM LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT CIR 6, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

house property and there could not have been any further additions. 18. Since the provisions of fixation of annual rent under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act are pari materia of Section 23 of the Act, we are inclined to accept the aforesaid view of the Calcutta High Court in Satya Co. Ltd. (supra) that in such circumstances, the annual value

INDOKEM LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT CR 6, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

house property and there could not have been any further additions. 18. Since the provisions of fixation of annual rent under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act are pari materia of Section 23 of the Act, we are inclined to accept the aforesaid view of the Calcutta High Court in Satya Co. Ltd. (supra) that in such circumstances, the annual value

INDOKEM LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT CR 6, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

house property and there could not have been any further additions. 18. Since the provisions of fixation of annual rent under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act are pari materia of Section 23 of the Act, we are inclined to accept the aforesaid view of the Calcutta High Court in Satya Co. Ltd. (supra) that in such circumstances, the annual value

INDOKEM LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT CIR 6, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

house property and there could not have been any further additions. 18. Since the provisions of fixation of annual rent under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act are pari materia of Section 23 of the Act, we are inclined to accept the aforesaid view of the Calcutta High Court in Satya Co. Ltd. (supra) that in such circumstances, the annual value

SAPNA MUKESH THAPAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 31(3)(3), MUMBAI

The appeal stands partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

property." If the assessee has within a period of one year before or two years after the date on which the transfer took place purchased, or has within a period of three years after that date constructed a residential house, then, instead of the capital gain being charged to income-tax as income of the previous year in which

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