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

194C of the Act. The Ld. AR explained that this is the first year of receipt of the rental income by the assessee and also there is a capitalization of interest of the preconstruction period claimed in the computation of income as per the provisions of the Act. Whereas from A.Y 2016-17 onwards, the claim of offering of rental

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

194C of the Act. The Ld. AR explained that this is the first year of receipt of the rental income by the assessee and also there is a capitalization of interest of the preconstruction period claimed in the computation of income as per the provisions of the Act. Whereas from A.Y 2016-17 onwards, the claim of offering of rental

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

194C of the Act. The Ld. AR explained that this is the first year of receipt of the rental income by the assessee and also there is a capitalization of interest of the preconstruction period claimed in the computation of income as per the provisions of the Act. Whereas from A.Y 2016-17 onwards, the claim of offering of rental

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

194C of the Act. The Ld. AR explained that this is the first year of receipt of the rental income by the assessee and also there is a capitalization of interest of the preconstruction period claimed in the computation of income as per the provisions of the Act. Whereas from A.Y 2016-17 onwards, the claim of offering of rental

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

194C of the Act. The Ld. AR explained that this is the first year of receipt of the rental income by the assessee and also there is a capitalization of interest of the preconstruction period claimed in the computation of income as per the provisions of the Act. Whereas from A.Y 2016-17 onwards, the claim of offering of rental

ACIT (OSD)-2(2), MUMBAI vs. SHOPPERS STOP LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1163/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2012-13) Acit(Osd)(Tds)-2(2) बिधम/ Shoppers Stop Ltd Room No. 706, 7Th Floor, K. 5Th Floor, Umang Tower, Vs. G. Mittal Ayurvedic Malad Link Road, Hospital Bldg, Charni Road Minidspace, Malad (W), (W), Mumbai-400002. Mumbai-400064. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcs4383A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Manan Mathuria Revenue By: Shri Byomakesh Pradipta Kumar Panda (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22/12/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/12/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: The Present Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-52, Mumbai Dated 12.03.2021 For Ay. 2012-13. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Revenue Is Directed Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Holding That, The Payments Made By The Assessee To Several Vendors In Relation To Its Procurements From Them, Consisting Of Appeals/Clothes/Footwear/Goods Manufactured By These Vendors, Were Not In The Nature Of “Works Contract” But “Purchase Of Goods” & That, Therefore, The Provisions Of Section 194C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) Invoked By The Assessing Officer In Relation Thereto, Were Not Applicable.

Section 194C of the Act. 24. The AO is further noted to have laid much emphasis on the aspect that, the assessee had long term arrangements with these vendors and therefore it was not in the nature of ordinary purchases as claimed by the assessee. Having regard to the facts as already discussed in the foregoing, and also having perused

DCIT (OSD) (TDS) -2 (2) , MUMBAI vs. SHOPPPERS STOP LTD, MUMBAI

Accordingly, all the grounds raised by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.1783/Mum/2021 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) बिधम/ Acit (Osd) Tds 2(2), M/S Shoppers Stop Limited Room No 706, 7Th Fl.., K.G Mittal 5Th Floor, Umang Tower, Vs. Ayurvedic Hospital Bldg, Malad Link Road, Charni Road (W), Minidspace, Malad (W), Mumbai- 400002 Mumbai-400064 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcs4383A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri .Vijay Mehta/Shri Manan Mathuriya Revenue By: Shri. Rakesh Ranjan (Dr) सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20/10/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/12/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

Section 194C of the Act. 24. The AO is further noted to have laid much emphasis on the aspect that, the assessee had long term arrangements with these vendors and therefore it was not in the nature of ordinary purchases as claimed by the assessee. Having regard to the facts as already discussed in the foregoing, and also having perused

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

194C of the Act. The Ld. AR explained that this is the first year of receipt of the rental income by the assessee and also there is a capitalization of interest of the preconstruction period claimed in the computation of income as per the provisions of the Act. Whereas from A.Y 2016-17 onwards, the claim of offering of rental

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

194C of the Act. The Ld. AR explained that this is the first year of receipt of the rental income by the assessee and also there is a capitalization of interest of the preconstruction period claimed in the computation of income as per the provisions of the Act. Whereas from A.Y 2016-17 onwards, the claim of offering of rental

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

194C of the Act. The Ld. AR explained that this is the first year of receipt of the rental income by the assessee and also there is a capitalization of interest of the preconstruction period claimed in the computation of income as per the provisions of the Act. Whereas from A.Y 2016-17 onwards, the claim of offering of rental

STAR INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 16(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm M/S. Star India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Asst. Cit 16(1) Room No.467, 4Th Floor Star House, Urmi Estate 95, Ganpat Rao Kadam Mumbai Marg, Lower Parel Mumbai – 400 013 Pan/Gir No.Aaacn1335Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

House, Urmi Estate 95, Ganpat Rao Kadam Mumbai Marg, Lower Parel Mumbai – 400 013 PAN/GIR No.AAACN1335Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Porus Kaka, Senior Advocate Revenue by Shri Sanjay Singh, CIT DR Date of Hearing 15/07/2020 Date of Pronouncement 17/07/2020 आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M): This appeal in ITA No.30/Mum/2018 for A.Y.2013-14 preferred

DCIT(OSD)(TDS)-2(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHOPPERS STOP LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, all the grounds raised by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 194C of the Act. 24. The AO is further noted to have laid much emphasis on the aspect that, the assessee had long term arrangements with these vendors and therefore it was not in the nature of ordinary purchases as claimed by the assessee. Having regard to the facts as already discussed in the foregoing, and also having perused

DCIT(OSD)(TDS)-2(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHOPPERS STOP LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, all the grounds raised by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 194C of the Act. 24. The AO is further noted to have laid much emphasis on the aspect that, the assessee had long term arrangements with these vendors and therefore it was not in the nature of ordinary purchases as claimed by the assessee. Having regard to the facts as already discussed in the foregoing, and also having perused

VIDYASAGAR ENTERPRISES LLP,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 13, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2653/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S Vidyasagar Enterprises Llp The Pr. Comm. Of Income Tax 13 (Formerly Vidyasagar Investments Ayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, बनाम/ Private Limited) Mumbai 400020. 6Th Floor, Business Park, S V Road, V. Chincholi Phatak, Malad (W), Mumbai 400064 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcv1066B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Haridas Bhat ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G M Doss

housing project, the actual effect of rental income and interest income of Rs. 1,70,07,861/- has been negated. The AO has not investigated the facts from this angle nor has he made any enquiry from the purchasing party. The AO has also not examined the comparative selling rate of immovable properties in Dist. Gandhinagar, Gujarat. Thus, the loss

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

VASANT J, KHETANI,MUMBAI vs. JCIT 17(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA N0

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3340/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Mr. Vasant J. Khetani, Joint Commissioner Of बनाम/ 255/16, Kamla Sadan, Income Tax-17(3), V. Prof. U.U. Bhatt Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Matunga, Road,Mumbai. Mumbai 400 019. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aacpk 4366M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

Housing Industry has updated to all their members about the recent legal development on this issue vide letter no. MCHI/SEC/11-12/107 dated 20-09-2011. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court has finally vide judgment dated 15-02-2011 held that premium on transfer of lease hold property owned by BMC is not a statutory liability being without authority

PFIZER LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2008-09 Pfizer Limited, Acit Range 8(2), Patel Estate, Off S.V. Rd. Aayakar Bahwan, बनाम/ Jogeshwari (W), M.K. Marg, Vs. Mumba-400102 Mumbai- (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aaacp3334M

house property”. Therefore, Ground no.4 is allowed. 7. Ground No.5 is not pressed by the Ld. Counsel. Accordingly, it is dismissed. 8. Ground No.6: In this ground the assessee has challenged the action of Ld. AO and the DRP in making the disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act, being the payments made to manufactures towards purchase of finished goods