SIR RATAN TATA TRUST,MUMBAI SUBURBAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in both AY 2014-15 and AY

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

House, 24, National Faceless Assessment Homi Mody Street, Fort, Centre-2(1), Vs. Mumbai-400001 MTNL Tele Building, PAN : AAATS1013P Cumballa Hills, Peddar Road, Mumbai-400026. Appellant) : Respondent) Appellant/Assessee by : Shri P. J. Pardiwala a/w Shri Sukhsagar Syal, AR Revenue/Respondent by : Shri Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 22.07.2024 Date of Pronouncement 26.08.2024 : Per Padmavathy S, AM: 1. These

FAROOQ ABDULLA MERCHANT,MUMBAI vs. ITO 23 (1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, Ground No. V raised by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Blefarooq Abdulla Merchant V. Income Tax Officer- Ward – 23(1)(4) Matru Mandir, Tardev Road A-1401, Poseidon Tower Mumbai – 400 007 Versova, Yari Road Above Indian Bank, Versova Andheri (W), Mumbai - 400061 Pan: Ahupm7426K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vimal Punamiya Department Represented By : Smt. Vranda U. Matkarni

161 house' as occurring in section 54 can include more than one or plural residential house - Held, yes The Judgment of High Court "Section 54 of the Income-tax Act, of Karnataka, in case of 1961 - Capital gains - Profit on sale Arun K. Thiagarajan V. of property used for residence Commissioner of Income (Residential house, connotation of) Tax (Appeals

JM FINANCIAL PROPERTY FUND I,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 25(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for assessment year

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

161(1) of the Act. Ground No. 8: Taxation of income which had already been Ground No. 8: Taxation of income which had already been Ground No. 8: Taxation of income which had already been considered in the returns of income of the beneficiaries considered in the returns of income of the beneficiaries considered in the returns of income

JM FINANCIAL PROPERTY FUND I,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 25(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for assessment year

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

161(1) of the Act. Ground No. 8: Taxation of income which had already been Ground No. 8: Taxation of income which had already been Ground No. 8: Taxation of income which had already been considered in the returns of income of the beneficiaries considered in the returns of income of the beneficiaries considered in the returns of income

ANJIS DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE CIT-5,MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Anjis Developers Private Limited, Pcit-5, 2Nd Floor, Soham Apartments, Room No. 515, 5Th Floor, 208, Walkeshwar Road, Teen Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mk. Batti, Road, Mumbai-400006. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaaca 6022 H Appellant Respondent : Assessee By S. Sriram/Dinesh Kukreja/Ssnyaknavedie Revenue By : Shri Chetan Kacha, Dr : Date Of Hearing 25/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/02/2023

house property’ in respect of unsold property’ in respect of unsold flats,the Assessing Officer was he Assessing Officer was required to initiate penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act and initiate penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act and initiate penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act and non-initiation of penalty of penalty has rendered the assessment order

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purposes

House Property income is being taxed in individual hands\nof each beneficiary at maximum marginal rate.\n4.1 In respect of intimation order u/s 143(1),it is contented that the\nadjustment made is beyond permissible adjustments u/s 143(1)(a).\n3rdproviso to sec 143(1) permitting adjustments based on TDS stood\nwithdrawn from AY 2018-19. Adjustment made being without

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

DY.CIT (E) -2(1) , MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI EDUCATIONAL TRUST, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

Section 41D of The MPT Act. However the doctrine of proportionality is a principle in law, which gives direction to a thought of a judge while imposing penalty. It is based on the idea of justice and objectivity. The penalty imposed on a person should be commensurate with the wrong done by him. Therefore, it is always a matter

DY.CIT (E) -2(1) , MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI EDUCATIONAL TRUST, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

Section 41D of The MPT Act. However the doctrine of proportionality is a principle in law, which gives direction to a thought of a judge while imposing penalty. It is based on the idea of justice and objectivity. The penalty imposed on a person should be commensurate with the wrong done by him. Therefore, it is always a matter

DY.CIT (E) -2(1) , MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI EDUCATIONAL TRUST, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

Section 41D of The MPT Act. However the doctrine of proportionality is a principle in law, which gives direction to a thought of a judge while imposing penalty. It is based on the idea of justice and objectivity. The penalty imposed on a person should be commensurate with the wrong done by him. Therefore, it is always a matter

DY.CIT (E) -2(1) , MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI EDUCATIONAL TRUST, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

Section 41D of The MPT Act. However the doctrine of proportionality is a principle in law, which gives direction to a thought of a judge while imposing penalty. It is based on the idea of justice and objectivity. The penalty imposed on a person should be commensurate with the wrong done by him. Therefore, it is always a matter

JOLLY MAKER 1 PREM CO-OP SOC LTD,MUMBAI CITY vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 17(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purpose

1 Premises Coop Society Ltd. Vs. ACIT-18(2)\nITA No.2827/Mum/2023\n23. On similar issue and identical facts we have adjudicated the\nappeal No. 2826/Mum/2023for assessment year 2013-14 as above by\nrestoring the issue to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for deciding a fresh. After\napplying the finding of the aforesaid decision as mutatis mutandis\nthis ground

AMBIKA TRADING CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 24(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee for both assessment years stands partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

House Property (Anupam Building): Rs. 18,42,953/- Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 4. The Ld.AR submitted that, the authorities below erred in not considering the fact that the property at 'Anupam' was vacant since AY 2009-10 due to disputes with earlier lease and therefore

AMBIKA TRADING CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 24(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee for both assessment years stands partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

House Property (Anupam Building): Rs. 18,42,953/- Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 4. The Ld.AR submitted that, the authorities below erred in not considering the fact that the property at 'Anupam' was vacant since AY 2009-10 due to disputes with earlier lease and therefore

BHAGIRATHI ENTERPRISE,VILE PARLE WEST MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 34(1)(1), MUMBAI BANDRA EAST

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for the AY

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

House Property (Copy of Computation And Balance Sheet Attached). Since, Members are having Income More than 10 Lakhs - Individually & we fall Under Higher Slab Rate of Income Tax (Under Old Regime) at 30% Plus Surcharge Plus Education Cess as Applicable. Hence, we had Pald Income Tax on AOP at Higher Rate i.e. 30%. Since AOP's Income is Between

BHAGIRATHI ENTERPRISE,VILE PARLE WEST MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 34(1)(1), BANDRA EAST MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for the AY

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

House Property (Copy of Computation And Balance Sheet Attached). Since, Members are having Income More than 10 Lakhs - Individually & we fall Under Higher Slab Rate of Income Tax (Under Old Regime) at 30% Plus Surcharge Plus Education Cess as Applicable. Hence, we had Pald Income Tax on AOP at Higher Rate i.e. 30%. Since AOP's Income is Between

DCIT-1(2)1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PATIL CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue s filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon’Ble & Ms. Padmavathy S., Hon’Ble

Property and Land Developers P Ltd, Vs. ACIT, [2018] 93 taxmann.com 296 P Ltd, Vs. ACIT, [2018] 93 taxmann.com 296 (Bom) (Bom) 4. Pr. CIT Vs. Montecarlo Construction Ltd, [2024] 161 Pr. CIT Vs. Montecarlo Construction Ltd, [2024] 161 Pr. CIT Vs. Montecarlo Construction Ltd, [2024] 161 taxmann.com 222 (Guj) taxmann.com 222 (Guj) 7. We have heard the counsels

DCIT-1(2)1, MUMBAI., MUMBAI vs. PATIL CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue s filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon’Ble & Ms. Padmavathy S., Hon’Ble

Property and Land Developers P Ltd, Vs. ACIT, [2018] 93 taxmann.com 296 P Ltd, Vs. ACIT, [2018] 93 taxmann.com 296 (Bom) (Bom) 4. Pr. CIT Vs. Montecarlo Construction Ltd, [2024] 161 Pr. CIT Vs. Montecarlo Construction Ltd, [2024] 161 Pr. CIT Vs. Montecarlo Construction Ltd, [2024] 161 taxmann.com 222 (Guj) taxmann.com 222 (Guj) 7. We have heard the counsels

SIR RATAN TATA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 773/मुं/2021 (िन.व.2016-17) Sir Ratan Tata Trust, Bombay House, 24, Homi Modi Street, Fort, Mumbai-400001. Pan: Aaats1013P ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Cit (Exemptions), Room No.617, 6Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400012 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Sh. Sukhsagar Syal, Advocate "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Sh. Amol Kirtane, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 15/12/2021 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 16/02/2022 आदेश/ Order

House, 24, Homi Modi Street, Fort, Mumbai-400001. PAN: AAATS1013P ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. CIT (Exemptions), Room No.617, 6th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400012 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant by : Sh. Sukhsagar Syal, Advocate "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent by : Sh. Amol Kirtane, CIT-DR सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date of hearing : 15/12/2021 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date of pronouncement : 16/02/2022 आदेश