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

166&167, which is read as under: “Meaning of composite rent” When apart from recovering rent of the building, in some cases the owner gets rent of other assets (like furniture) or he charges for different services provided in the building (for instance, charges for lifts, security, air conditioning, etc.). The amount so recovered is known as "composite rent

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

166&167, which is read as under: “Meaning of composite rent” When apart from recovering rent of the building, in some cases the owner gets rent of other assets (like furniture) or he charges for different services provided in the building (for instance, charges for lifts, security, air conditioning, etc.). The amount so recovered is known as "composite rent

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

166&167, which is read as under: “Meaning of composite rent” When apart from recovering rent of the building, in some cases the owner gets rent of other assets (like furniture) or he charges for different services provided in the building (for instance, charges for lifts, security, air conditioning, etc.). The amount so recovered is known as "composite rent

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

166&167, which is read as under: “Meaning of composite rent” When apart from recovering rent of the building, in some cases the owner gets rent of other assets (like furniture) or he charges for different services provided in the building (for instance, charges for lifts, security, air conditioning, etc.). The amount so recovered is known as "composite rent

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

166&167, which is read as under: “Meaning of composite rent” When apart from recovering rent of the building, in some cases the owner gets rent of other assets (like furniture) or he charges for different services provided in the building (for instance, charges for lifts, security, air conditioning, etc.). The amount so recovered is known as "composite rent

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

166&167, which is read as under: “Meaning of composite rent” When apart from recovering rent of the building, in some cases the owner gets rent of other assets (like furniture) or he charges for different services provided in the building (for instance, charges for lifts, security, air conditioning, etc.). The amount so recovered is known as "composite rent

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

166&167, which is read as under: “Meaning of composite rent” When apart from recovering rent of the building, in some cases the owner gets rent of other assets (like furniture) or he charges for different services provided in the building (for instance, charges for lifts, security, air conditioning, etc.). The amount so recovered is known as "composite rent

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

166&167, which is read as under: “Meaning of composite rent” When apart from recovering rent of the building, in some cases the owner gets rent of other assets (like furniture) or he charges for different services provided in the building (for instance, charges for lifts, security, air conditioning, etc.). The amount so recovered is known as "composite rent

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 25(3), MUMBAI vs. PANKAJ ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for AY 2012

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Pankaj Enterprises, Jt. Cit Range-25(3), C/O Shankarlal Jain & Assoicates Pritashkar Bhavan, Bkc, 12, Engineer Building, 265, Vs. Bandra (E), Princess Street, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax- M/S Pankaj Enterprises, 25(3), Plot No. 1, Behind Ice Factory, Room No. 601, C-10, 6Th Floor, Vs. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bandra Mumbai-400072. Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Co No. 313/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4875/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Co No. 312/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4876/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2012-13

house property” and “income from other sources”. The assessee filed return of income for the year . The assessee filed return of income for the year . The assessee filed return of income for the year under consideration on 28/07/2012 declaring total income under consideration on 28/07/2012 declaring total income under consideration on 28/07/2012 declaring total income at ₹8,21,584/- which

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 25(3), MUMBAI vs. PANKAJ ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for AY 2012

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Pankaj Enterprises, Jt. Cit Range-25(3), C/O Shankarlal Jain & Assoicates Pritashkar Bhavan, Bkc, 12, Engineer Building, 265, Vs. Bandra (E), Princess Street, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax- M/S Pankaj Enterprises, 25(3), Plot No. 1, Behind Ice Factory, Room No. 601, C-10, 6Th Floor, Vs. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bandra Mumbai-400072. Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Co No. 313/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4875/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Co No. 312/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4876/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2012-13

house property” and “income from other sources”. The assessee filed return of income for the year . The assessee filed return of income for the year . The assessee filed return of income for the year under consideration on 28/07/2012 declaring total income under consideration on 28/07/2012 declaring total income under consideration on 28/07/2012 declaring total income at ₹8,21,584/- which

PANKAJ ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. JT CIT RG 25(3), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for AY 2012

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Pankaj Enterprises, Jt. Cit Range-25(3), C/O Shankarlal Jain & Assoicates Pritashkar Bhavan, Bkc, 12, Engineer Building, 265, Vs. Bandra (E), Princess Street, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax- M/S Pankaj Enterprises, 25(3), Plot No. 1, Behind Ice Factory, Room No. 601, C-10, 6Th Floor, Vs. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bandra Mumbai-400072. Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Co No. 313/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4875/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Co No. 312/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4876/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2012-13

house property” and “income from other sources”. The assessee filed return of income for the year . The assessee filed return of income for the year . The assessee filed return of income for the year under consideration on 28/07/2012 declaring total income under consideration on 28/07/2012 declaring total income under consideration on 28/07/2012 declaring total income at ₹8,21,584/- which

ADDL CIT RG 7(1), MUMBAI vs. PIRAMAL ENTERPRISES LTD (FORMERLY KNWON AS PIRAMAL HEALTHCARE LTD) (AS ULTIMATE SUCCESSOR TO NICHOLAS PIRAMAL INDIA LTD), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Piramal Enterprises Dy. Commissioner Of Limited (Formerly Known Income Tax, As Piramal Healthcare Range-8(2)(1), Limited) (Earlier Known As Mumbai. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd.), Vs. Piramal Tower, Agastya Corporate Park, Lbs Marg, Kamani Junction, Kurla (West), Mumbai – 400 070 Pan: Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Piramal Enterprises Income Tax, Limited (Formerly Known Circle-8(2)(1), As Piramal Healthcare [Erstwhile Dcit Circle- Ltd.) (As Ultimate 7(1)], Successor To Nicholas Vs. Mumbai. Piramal India Ltd.), Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013 Pan: Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent)

house property" and to direct the Assessing Officer to grant deduction u/s.24(a). 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer in respect of deduction of Rs.24285714/- claimed u/s.35A in respect of the acquisition of the trade mark by M/s.Sarabhai Piramal

PIRAMAL HEALTHCARE LTD ( EARLIER KNOWNAS NICHOLAS PIRAMAL INDIA LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 7(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Piramal Enterprises Dy. Commissioner Of Limited (Formerly Known Income Tax, As Piramal Healthcare Range-8(2)(1), Limited) (Earlier Known As Mumbai. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd.), Vs. Piramal Tower, Agastya Corporate Park, Lbs Marg, Kamani Junction, Kurla (West), Mumbai – 400 070 Pan: Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Piramal Enterprises Income Tax, Limited (Formerly Known Circle-8(2)(1), As Piramal Healthcare [Erstwhile Dcit Circle- Ltd.) (As Ultimate 7(1)], Successor To Nicholas Vs. Mumbai. Piramal India Ltd.), Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013 Pan: Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent)

house property" and to direct the Assessing Officer to grant deduction u/s.24(a). 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer in respect of deduction of Rs.24285714/- claimed u/s.35A in respect of the acquisition of the trade mark by M/s.Sarabhai Piramal

TODI INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 8(3)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

section. Conversely, if the dominant intention of the assessee is to exploit a commercial asset, the income received should be treated as income from business. The assessee has not shown that its dominant intention was to exploit the asset commercially. He further referred to the case of M/s Shambhu Investment (P) Ltd.(249 ITR 47), and held that although

SHRI. SAJAL RADHIKAMOHAN KAR,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-27 (3) , MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood () Shri Sajal Radhikamohan Kar Acit,Circle -27(3) 503, Swastik Solitaire, Chadve Vs. Tower 6, Vashi Railway Chs, Sion Trombay Road, Station Complex, Chember, Mumbai – 400071 Navi Mumbai – 400 703 Pan No. Aadpk3367P (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee By : Shri Reepal G.Tralshawala, A.R Revenue By : Shri Gurbinder Singh, D.R Date Of Hearing : 03/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 01/09/2021

Housing Society Limited, Chembur, Mumbai was released in favor of the assessee is backed by a partial partition of the HUF, viz. Sajal Kar, HUF. Admittedly, as per sub-section (9) of Sec. 171 of the Act, in a case where a partial partition has taken place after 31st Day of December, 1978, among the members of a HUF hitherto

ABDUL RAHIM SULEMAN GHASWALA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 41(4)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Abdul Rahim Suleman Ghaswala, Dcit-41(4)(1), 142/148, Ghaswala Estate, Sv Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Road, Jogeshwari (West)-400102 Vs. Kurla Complex, Bandra (East)-400051. Pan No. Aalpg 9087 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. S.M. Makhija Revenue By : Mr. A.S. Sant, Sr. Dr : Date Of Hearing 27/12/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 01/01/2024

section shall apply where— (a) the assessee,— — (i) owns more than one residential house, other than the new asset, on ) owns more than one residential house, other than the new asset, on ) owns more than one residential house, other than the new asset, on the date of transfer of the original asset; or of transfer of the original asset

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. JIVESH DEVELOPERS & PROPERTIES P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue‟s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

housing project, it cannot be 12 M/s. Jivesh Developers & Properties Pvt. Ltd. said to be belonging to the assessee as envisaged under section 153C of the Act. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) after considering the submissions of the assessee in the context of facts and material available on record, accepted the fact that the computer print out of the unapproved plan

VASWANI TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri G. Manjunatha

166 of the Act, consequently, there is no tax liability on the AOP. Assessee has filed its return of income declaring rental income along with maintenance charges and property charges recovered under the head ‘income from house property’ and claimed standard deduction @30% on total receipts. Assessment has been reopened u/s. 147 of the Act, on the ground that income