ARIHANT DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -1, KALYAN

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are\ndismissed

section 24(a) of the Act. The contention of the AO that the\nassessee is carrying out an organized activity of development and\nconstruction of godowns which are held as stock-in-trade and thus, the\nrental income generated in the course of the business has to be taxed as\nbusiness income and not as income from house property

ARIHANT DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -1 , KALYAN

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are\ndismissed

section 24(a) of the Act. The contention of the AO that the\nassessee is carrying out an organized activity of development and\nconstruction of godowns which are held as stock-in-trade and thus, the\nrental income generated in the course of the business has to be taxed as\nbusiness income and not as income from house property

ISLAND STAR MALL DEVELOPES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 6(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

house property and the common area maintenance charges under income from business rental income for the A.Y.2016-17 to A.Y.2021-22 and passed the orders u/sec 143(1) and U/sec143(3) of the Act placed at page 163 of the paper book as under: Sr. No. A.Y Section

ISLAND STAR MALL DEVELOPES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI SUBURBAN vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 6(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

house property and the common area maintenance charges under income from business rental income for the A.Y.2016-17 to A.Y.2021-22 and passed the orders u/sec 143(1) and U/sec143(3) of the Act placed at page 163 of the paper book as under: Sr. No. A.Y Section

ISLAND STAR MALL DEVELOPES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI SUBURBAN vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 6(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

house property and the common area maintenance charges under income from business rental income for the A.Y.2016-17 to A.Y.2021-22 and passed the orders u/sec 143(1) and U/sec143(3) of the Act placed at page 163 of the paper book as under: Sr. No. A.Y Section

ISLAND STAR MALL DEVELOPES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 6(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

house property and the common area maintenance charges under income from business rental income for the A.Y.2016-17 to A.Y.2021-22 and passed the orders u/sec 143(1) and U/sec143(3) of the Act placed at page 163 of the paper book as under: Sr. No. A.Y Section

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 6(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S ISLAND STAR MALL DEVELOPERS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

house property and the common area maintenance charges under income from business rental income for the A.Y.2016-17 to A.Y.2021-22 and passed the orders u/sec 143(1) and U/sec143(3) of the Act placed at page 163 of the paper book as under: Sr. No. A.Y Section

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 6(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S ISLAND STAR MALL DEVELOPERS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

house property and the common area maintenance charges under income from business rental income for the A.Y.2016-17 to A.Y.2021-22 and passed the orders u/sec 143(1) and U/sec143(3) of the Act placed at page 163 of the paper book as under: Sr. No. A.Y Section

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 6(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S ISLAND STAR MALL DEVELOPERS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

house property and the common area maintenance charges under income from business rental income for the A.Y.2016-17 to A.Y.2021-22 and passed the orders u/sec 143(1) and U/sec143(3) of the Act placed at page 163 of the paper book as under: Sr. No. A.Y Section

M/S.EMCO DYESTUFF PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 12(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.703/Mum/2018 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) बिाम/ M/S. Emco Dyestuff Dcit 12(2)(1), Private Ltd. 5Th Floor, Unit No. 304, Earnest House, V. Western Edge, Nariman Point, W E Highway, Mumbai-400021 Dattapada Road, Borivali East, Mumbai-400066 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaace1167D (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Snehal R. Shah Revenue By: Shri. V.K Chaturvedi (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 10.04.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.07.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 703/Mum/2018, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 16.10.2017, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”) In Appeal Number Cit(A)-20/Dcit-12(2)(1)/It-10040/16- 17 For Assessment Year 2013-14, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated 11.03.2016 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2013-14. I.T.A. No.703/Mum/2018

properties were not used for purposes of business of the assessee at all during year under consideration . The learned CIT(A) referred to provisions of clause (ii) to Section 32(1) r.w.s. 38(2) of the 1961 Act and observed that the assessee is not entitled to depreciation on premises let out although part relief was granted by learned

DCIT 5(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. DEEPAK SHASHI BHUSHAN ROY, MUMBAI

In the result these grounds of appeal raised

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahaha & Shri Pawan Singhdcit 5(3)(1), Deepak Shashi Bhusan Roy, Flat Room No.573, Aayakar Bhavan, No.11, Rambha Chs Ltd, M.K.Road, Nepean Sea Road, Vs. Mumbai 400020 Mumbai-400006 Pan:Aaapr 7703 F

house property by adopting 8% of cost of construction as ALV as against Municipal ratable value adopted by the assessee. It has been held by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Balmukund Acharya vs. DCIT reported in [2009] 310 ITR 310 that the A.O. should not take advantage of the assessee’s ignorance of law. Since

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6(1)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ISLAND STAR MALL DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 24 Deduction u/s 24(a) @ 30% NVA (Standard deduction) Deduction borrowed Income from house property Amount XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX u/s 24(b) on account of interest on XXXX XXXX 11. The Ld.AR explained that the revenue authorities has accepted the method of offering of rental income for the A.Y.2016-17 to A.Y.2021-22, where the assessee has offered rental income

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 6(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S ISLAND STAR MALL DEVELOPERS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 24 Deduction u/s 24(a) @ 30% NVA (Standard deduction) XXXX Deduction borrowed u/s 24(b) on account of interest on XXXX Income from house property XXXX 11. The Ld.AR explained that the revenue authorities has accepted the method of offering of rental income for the A.Y.2016-17 to A.Y.2021-22, where the assessee has offered rental income under the income from

ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 6(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S ISLAND STAR MALL DEVELOPERS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 24 Deduction u/s 24(a) @ 30% NVA (Standard deduction) XXXX Deduction u/s 24(b) on account of interest on XXXX borrowed XXXX Income from house property XXXX 11. The Ld.AR explained that the revenue authorities has accepted the method of offering of rental income for the A.Y.2016-17 to A.Y.2021-22, where the assessee has offered rental income under the income

RAVI K SHETH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Bleshri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleshri Ravi K. Sheth V. Dcit – 5(3) C/O Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Room No. 573 2Nd Floor, Esplande House Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg Mumbai – 400020 Fort, Mumbai – 400001 Pan: Aaips7341E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Percy Paridiwala Department By : Shri Bharat Andhle

section 23(4)(b) of the Act. Thus, the house property at Nagaon and the Flat No. 12B in building “Manek” are used by the assessee for his 4 Shri Ravi K. Sheth own residence. In case of Flat No. 12B assessee has considered the same as deemed let out and computed income from house property by adopting the annual

ACIT - 1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. CYRUS INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY CYRUS INVESTMENTS LTD.), MUMBAI

In the result , appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6414/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Assistant Commissioner Of बिाम/ M/S Cyrus Investments Income-Tax-1(1)(1) Private Limited 579, Aayakar Bhawan Esplanade House, Fort V. M K Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400002 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaacc2880P (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

Section 23(1)(a) . He drew our attention to page 10-11 of paper book wherein detailed computation for computing income chargeable to tax under the head „Income from House Property‟ is placed w.r.t. both the flats. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the AO erred in adopting market value of rent being Rs. 200 per square feet

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-23(3), MUMBAI vs. VISHAL DILIP SANKHE, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year : 2012-13

property, he would be entitled to benefit provided under section 54 even though there was no registration within said period - Held, yes" 32. Similarly, in the case of A S Khajanchi [163 Taxman 426 (MP)J it was held that – "Section 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Capital gains - Exemption of, in case of investment in residential house

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)

house property’. 14 Mr. Ismail Abdulkarim Balwa & Anr. ITA Nos. 2680 & 2681/Mum/2008 15. Another significant aspect, which has been vehemently brought out by the Revenue, is that the depreciation is deemed to have been allowed and, therefore, the property is to be considered as a business asset. In fact, it has been repeatedly asserted by the assessee that no depreciation