GOPALKRISHNA PANDU SHETTY,MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA vs. ACIT CIRCLE 32(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI, MAHRASHTRA

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

173 Taxman 311 (Bombay). The Appellant is now before us in appeal challenging the denial of 5. deduction claimed by the Appellant under Section 54 of the Act. Ld. Authorised representative for the Appellant appearing before us 6. submitted that there were bonafide reasons for getting the sale deed of the new residential house property

DCIT-8(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. SHRI. ASHOK SANTU BHAVANI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is treated as allowed

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit – 8(1)(2) Vs. Shri Ashok Santu Room No. 625, 6Th Floor Bhavnani Aayakar Bhavan, 22, New Pushpamilan, Mk Marg, Mumbai – 67 Worli Hills, Worli, 400 020. Mumbai – 400018

house because it has one common entrance, one kitchen, one electricity meter, one piped gas connection, one property tax bill and one Society bill. Even though, the property was purchased by way of two agreements, the appellant has received the same as one single unit. The appellant has also pointed out that the whole building has been constructed similarly. There

M/S.3NN CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. PR.CIT-27, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

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

173/-) and after statutory deduction (@30%), the Net Annual Value taxable under the head Income from House Property works out to ₹ 39,88,511/-. As the project was completed on 25.10.2012, the 4 notional rent for the five months is assessable. Thus the amount of ₹ 16,61,880/- remained to be assessed and taxed under the head ‘Income from House

ASST CIT 18(2), MUMBAI vs. LAXMI FINANCE & LEASING COMPANIES COMMERICAL PREMISES CO OP SOC. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

173 ITR 82 wherein it was held that in respect of vacant properties annual value need to be determined in accordance with Section 23(1)(c) of the Act if property remains vacant for the whole of the year. M/s. Laxmi Finance & Leasing Companies Commercial Premises Co-op Housing

HGP COMMUNITY PVT.LTD SUCESSOR TO ALPHA ASSOCIATES,MUMBAI vs. DY.CIT CENT. CIR-1(2) , MUMBAI

In the result, the ground

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant ()And Ms Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

section 245C made by the Group companies admitted of inflating thepurchases. Thus, for the companies admitted of inflating thepurchases. Thus, for the companies admitted of inflating thepurchases. Thus, for the remaining purchases, we find no infirmity in the conclusion remaining purchases, we find no infirmity in the conclusion remaining purchases, we find no infirmity in the conclusion drawn

M/S HGP COMMUNITY PVT. LTD SUCESSOR TO ALPHA ASSOCIATES,MUMBAI vs. DY.CIT CENT. CIR -1(2) MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the ground

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant ()And Ms Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

section 245C made by the Group companies admitted of inflating thepurchases. Thus, for the companies admitted of inflating thepurchases. Thus, for the companies admitted of inflating thepurchases. Thus, for the remaining purchases, we find no infirmity in the conclusion remaining purchases, we find no infirmity in the conclusion remaining purchases, we find no infirmity in the conclusion drawn

DCIT CENT. CIR-1(2) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. ALPHA ASSOCIATES, MUMBAI

In the result, the ground

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant ()And Ms Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

section 245C made by the Group companies admitted of inflating thepurchases. Thus, for the companies admitted of inflating thepurchases. Thus, for the companies admitted of inflating thepurchases. Thus, for the remaining purchases, we find no infirmity in the conclusion remaining purchases, we find no infirmity in the conclusion remaining purchases, we find no infirmity in the conclusion drawn

M/S HGP COMMUNITY PVT. LTD SUCESSOR TO ALPHA ASSOCIATES,MUMBAI vs. DY.CIT CENT. CIR -1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the ground

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant ()And Ms Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

section 245C made by the Group companies admitted of inflating thepurchases. Thus, for the companies admitted of inflating thepurchases. Thus, for the companies admitted of inflating thepurchases. Thus, for the remaining purchases, we find no infirmity in the conclusion remaining purchases, we find no infirmity in the conclusion remaining purchases, we find no infirmity in the conclusion drawn

DCIT CENT. CIR 1(2) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. ALPHA ASSOCIATES, MUMBAI

In the result, the ground

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant ()And Ms Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

section 245C made by the Group companies admitted of inflating thepurchases. Thus, for the companies admitted of inflating thepurchases. Thus, for the companies admitted of inflating thepurchases. Thus, for the remaining purchases, we find no infirmity in the conclusion remaining purchases, we find no infirmity in the conclusion remaining purchases, we find no infirmity in the conclusion drawn

M/S. HGP COMMUNITY PVT. LT D SUCESSOR TO ALPHA ASSOCIATES,MUMBAI vs. DY. C.I.T. .CENT. CIR.-1(2) , MUMBAI

In the result, the ground

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant ()And Ms Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

section 245C made by the Group companies admitted of inflating thepurchases. Thus, for the companies admitted of inflating thepurchases. Thus, for the companies admitted of inflating thepurchases. Thus, for the remaining purchases, we find no infirmity in the conclusion remaining purchases, we find no infirmity in the conclusion remaining purchases, we find no infirmity in the conclusion drawn

HGP COMMUNITY PVT.LTD SUCESSOR TO ALPHA ASSOCIATES,MUMBAI vs. DY.C.I.T.CENTRAL CIR -1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the ground

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant ()And Ms Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

section 245C made by the Group companies admitted of inflating thepurchases. Thus, for the companies admitted of inflating thepurchases. Thus, for the companies admitted of inflating thepurchases. Thus, for the remaining purchases, we find no infirmity in the conclusion remaining purchases, we find no infirmity in the conclusion remaining purchases, we find no infirmity in the conclusion drawn

DCIT CIR 3(1), MUMBAI vs. VEMBU VAIDYANATHAN, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit, Shri Vembu Vaidyanathan, Circle-3(1), B-1602, Beaumonde बनाम/ Room No.607, 6Th Floor, Apartments, Appa Saheb Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400028 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaipv5796J Shri B. Yadagiri-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Vijay C. Kothari

section 54 of the IT Act, 1961. Till such time, he had only the right to purchase house property, he added. He relied on the following decisions: (1) CWT v. K.B. Pradhan (1981) 130 ITR 393(Ori.) (2) K.P. Varghese v. ITO (1981) 131 ITR 597(SC) (3) CIT v. Mrs. Shahzada Begum (1988)173

DCIT 3(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA AIRPORT DEVELOPEMENT. CO LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumard C I T - 3(2)(1) M/S. Maharashtra Airport Room No. 674, 6Th Floor Development Co. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. 12Th Floor, World Trade Mumbai 400020 Centre Tower No. 1 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai 400005 Pan –Aadcm9623M Appellant Respondent Co No. 45/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year:2008-09) M/S. Maharashtra Airport D C I T - 3(2)(1) Development Co. Ltd. Room No. 674, 6Th Floor 12Th Floor, World Trade Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Centre Tower No. 1 Mumbai 400020 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai 400005 Pan –Aadcm9623M Cross Objector Appellant In Appeal Revenue By: Shri Abhijit Patankar Assesseeby: Shri Salil Kapoor & Shri Sumit Lal Chandani Date Of Hearing: 11.04.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.05.2018 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey, Jm The Aforesaid Appeal Of The Department & The Cross Objection By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Dated 11.12.2015 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Mumbai For A.Y. 2008-09. Ita No. 1586/Mum/2016 – A.Y. 2008-09 2. The Basic Grievance Of The Department In This Appeal Is Against The Decision Of The Learned Cit(A) In Holding The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter “The Act”) As Bad In Law & Void.

house property stands on the same footing as it was not derived from business of development of infrastructure facility, deduction under Section 80IAB in respect of such income cannot be allowed. Accordingly, he added back the amount of `7,96,173

VIJAYDEEP HOTELS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 29, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं /I.Ta Nos. 3291,3293,3384 & 3385/Mum/11 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2004-05 To 2007-08 The Acit, M/S. Vijaydeep Hotels Pvt. बनाम/ Cent. Cir-29, Ltd., Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Hotel Bawa International, Mumbai-400 020 Nehru Road Ext, Near Domestic Airport, Vile Parle, Mumbai-400 049 आयकर अपील सं /I.Ta Nos. 3241 & 3243/Mum/11 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 & 2007-08 M/S. Vijaydeep Hotels Pvt. The Acit, बनाम/ Ltd., Cent. Cir-29, Vs. Hotel Bawa International, Aayakar Bhavan, Nehru Road Ext, Mumbai-400 020 Near Domestic Airport, Vile Parle, Mumbai-400 049 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacv 1582D आयकर अपील सं /I.Ta Nos. 951 To 953/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06 To 2007-08 Shri Karanveer Singh G. The Acit, बनाम/ Bawa, Cent. Cir-29, Vs. 22, Sahib Guru Angad Aayakar Bhavan, Niwas, Mumbai-400 020 Vitthal Nagar Co. Op. Soc. N.S. Road No. 22, Jvpd Scheme, Juhu, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400 049 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aejpb 8856F

house property only and not under the head income from business or under the head income from other sources as was assessed by the Ld. CIT(A)/Assessing Officer . This ground of the assessee is therefore allowed. 36. The second ground of appeal is regarding challenging the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition

ACIT CEN CIR 29, MUMBAI vs. VIJAYDEEP HOTELS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं /I.Ta Nos. 3291,3293,3384 & 3385/Mum/11 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2004-05 To 2007-08 The Acit, M/S. Vijaydeep Hotels Pvt. बनाम/ Cent. Cir-29, Ltd., Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Hotel Bawa International, Mumbai-400 020 Nehru Road Ext, Near Domestic Airport, Vile Parle, Mumbai-400 049 आयकर अपील सं /I.Ta Nos. 3241 & 3243/Mum/11 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 & 2007-08 M/S. Vijaydeep Hotels Pvt. The Acit, बनाम/ Ltd., Cent. Cir-29, Vs. Hotel Bawa International, Aayakar Bhavan, Nehru Road Ext, Mumbai-400 020 Near Domestic Airport, Vile Parle, Mumbai-400 049 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacv 1582D आयकर अपील सं /I.Ta Nos. 951 To 953/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06 To 2007-08 Shri Karanveer Singh G. The Acit, बनाम/ Bawa, Cent. Cir-29, Vs. 22, Sahib Guru Angad Aayakar Bhavan, Niwas, Mumbai-400 020 Vitthal Nagar Co. Op. Soc. N.S. Road No. 22, Jvpd Scheme, Juhu, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400 049 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aejpb 8856F

house property only and not under the head income from business or under the head income from other sources as was assessed by the Ld. CIT(A)/Assessing Officer . This ground of the assessee is therefore allowed. 36. The second ground of appeal is regarding challenging the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition

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 after allowing the necessary deductions at ₹ 11,31,664/-. For this purpose, he has determined the annual value based on the' value adopted by Valuer M/s Nadkarni& Co. in its valuation report. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the AO, the assessee had filed an appeal before the CIT(A). In the said appeal, the assessee

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 after allowing the necessary deductions at ₹ 11,31,664/-. For this purpose, he has determined the annual value based on the' value adopted by Valuer M/s Nadkarni& Co. in its valuation report. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the AO, the assessee had filed an appeal before the CIT(A). In the said appeal, the assessee

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 after allowing the necessary deductions at ₹ 11,31,664/-. For this purpose, he has determined the annual value based on the' value adopted by Valuer M/s Nadkarni& Co. in its valuation report. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the AO, the assessee had filed an appeal before the CIT(A). In the said appeal, the assessee