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

Section under which order Date of order is passed 1 2016-17 143(3) 26.12.2018 2 2017-18 143(3) 21.12.2019 3 2018-19 143(3) 21.06.2021 4 2019-20 143(1) 28.03.2021 5 2020-21 143(3) 22.09.2022 6 2021-22 143(1) 07.03.2023 We considering the facts, circumstances and submissions as discussed in the above paragraphs observe that

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

Section under which order Date of order is passed 1 2016-17 143(3) 26.12.2018 2 2017-18 143(3) 21.12.2019 3 2018-19 143(3) 21.06.2021 4 2019-20 143(1) 28.03.2021 5 2020-21 143(3) 22.09.2022 6 2021-22 143(1) 07.03.2023 We considering the facts, circumstances and submissions as discussed in the above paragraphs observe that

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

Section under which order Date of order is passed 1 2016-17 143(3) 26.12.2018 2 2017-18 143(3) 21.12.2019 3 2018-19 143(3) 21.06.2021 4 2019-20 143(1) 28.03.2021 5 2020-21 143(3) 22.09.2022 6 2021-22 143(1) 07.03.2023 We considering the facts, circumstances and submissions as discussed in the above paragraphs observe that

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

Section under which order Date of order is passed 1 2016-17 143(3) 26.12.2018 2 2017-18 143(3) 21.12.2019 3 2018-19 143(3) 21.06.2021 4 2019-20 143(1) 28.03.2021 5 2020-21 143(3) 22.09.2022 6 2021-22 143(1) 07.03.2023 We considering the facts, circumstances and submissions as discussed in the above paragraphs observe that

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

Section under which order Date of order is passed 1 2016-17 143(3) 26.12.2018 2 2017-18 143(3) 21.12.2019 3 2018-19 143(3) 21.06.2021 4 2019-20 143(1) 28.03.2021 5 2020-21 143(3) 22.09.2022 6 2021-22 143(1) 07.03.2023 We considering the facts, circumstances and submissions as discussed in the above paragraphs observe that

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 CEN CIR 1(2), MUMBAI vs. HIRANANDNANI PALACE GARDENS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negi

Section 23 of the Act as income from house property.” 9.4. In the case of ACIT Vs. M/s.Haware Construction Pvt. Ltd., in ITA Nos.3321/Mum/2016 & 3172/Mum/2016 (AYs.2009-10 & 2011-12), dt.31-08-2018, the Co-ordinate Bench has held as under: “4.5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. On the above issue, we come across one decision

AMIRALI AKBARALI ENGINEER,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 24(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2012-13 Amirali Akbarali Engineer, Vs Acit, A/201, Senha Apna Ghar, Ward-24(1), Unit No.11, Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Swami Samarth Nagar, Mumbai Andheri (West), Mumbai-400053 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aacpe9331N

192/-. The assessee invested the same by purchasing three flats on a consideration of Rs.2,63,79,011/- including stamp duty, registration fees and service tax on the new flats. The case of the assessee is that triplex flats in the same building were purchased and claimed deduction under section 54F of the Act. The ld. Assessing Officer allowed

ASST CIT 27(3), NAVI MUMBAI vs. SKY STAR, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Assessment Year: 2010-11

house property and also expenses under section 37 of the Act while computing the income from the business or profession. The assessee also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Sarabhai Management Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 192

DCIT 22(2), NAVI MUMBAI vs. SKY STAR, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Assessment Year: 2010-11

house property and also expenses under section 37 of the Act while computing the income from the business or profession. The assessee also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Sarabhai Management Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 192

SKY STAR,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 22(2), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Assessment Year: 2010-11

house property and also expenses under section 37 of the Act while computing the income from the business or profession. The assessee also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Sarabhai Management Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 192

SKYLINE PRASHASTI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 22(2)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Assessment Year: 2010-11

house property and also expenses under section 37 of the Act while computing the income from the business or profession. The assessee also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Sarabhai Management Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 192

MANOJ TEKRIWAL,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 24(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

property is considered, it would continue to be owned by co-owners. Joint ownership is different from absolute ownership. In the Manoj Tekriwal ITA No.4147/Mum./2015 case of residential unit, none of the co-owners can claim that he is the owner of residential house. Ownership of a residential house, in our opinion, means ownership to the exclusion

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI vs. SHERIAR PHIROJSHA IRANI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Sandeep Singh Karhail

house properties, in view of fact that one residential property was co-jointly owned in name of assessee and his wife and he could not be treated as 'absolute owner of said property, deduction under section 54F could not be denied to him. We note that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Vegetable Products

KANAKIA SPACES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are allowed for

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singh

house property. However, there is contrary view of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Neha Builders (supra) that income derived from the property would always be termed as ‘income’ from the property, but if the property is used as ‘stock in trade’, then the said property would become or partake the character of the stock, and income derived from

SHWETA SINGH,MUMBAI vs. ITO-WARD 33(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

house properties, in view of fact that one residential property was co-jointly owned in name of assessee and his wife and he could not be treated as 'absolute owner of said property, deduction under section 54F could not be denied to him. We note that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Vegetable Products

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

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

property which gave rise to proportionate capital gains in the assessee's hands. In computing the capital gains, the assessee claimed deduction under Section 54F on the ground that the sale proceeds were invested in the acquisition of a vacant plot for Rs. 31,25,100/- and the purchase of a residential house

GEMSTAR ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 30(1), MUMBAI

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Pawan Singh

house property. However, there is contrary ITA No. 5549/Mum/2016- Gemstar Enterprises view of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Neha Builders (supra) that income derived from the property would always be termed as ‘income’ from the property, but if the property is used as ‘stock in trade’, then said property would become or partake the character of the stock