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

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

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

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

sections": [ "Sec 24", "Sec 143(1)", "Sec 143(3)", "Sec 115JB", "Sec 36(1)(iii)", "Sec 194I", "Sec 194C", "Sec 56(ii)", "Sec 56(iii)" ], "issues": "The core issue is the correct head of income under which rental income and associated expenses of a commercial complex should be taxed: 'Income from House Property

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals filed\nby the revenue are dismissed

sections": [ "Sec. 143(1)", "Sec. 143(3)", "Sec. 24", "Sec. 24(a)", "Sec. 24(b)", "Sec. 36(1)(iii)", "Sec. 56(ii)", "Sec. 56(iii)", "Sec. 115JB", "Sec. 194I", "Sec. 194C" ], "issues": "Whether composite rental income, including charges for premises and amenities, should be taxed under 'Income from House Property

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

In the result, the\nappeal filed by the revenue is dismissed\n35

House Property' and common area maintenance charges under 'Income from Business'. Deductions would be allowed accordingly. The Tribunal also addressed grounds related to brought forward book losses, interest expenses, and set-off of interest income on fixed deposits.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "Sec 250", "Sec 24", "Sec 143(2)", "Sec 142(1)", "Sec 56(ii)&(iii)", "Sec 1941", "Sec 194C

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

sections": [ "Sec 24", "Sec 115JB", "Sec 143(1)", "Sec 143(3)", "Sec 142(1)", "Sec 143(2)", "Sec 194I", "Sec 194C", "Sec 56(ii)", "Sec 56(iii)", "Sec 36(1)(iii)" ], "issues": "Whether rental income from a composite agreement for letting out of premises and provision of amenities should be taxed under 'Income from House Property

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

house property' and common area maintenance charges under 'Income from business'. The AO was directed to allow deductions incurred wholly and exclusively for earning income. The appeal filed by the assessee was partly allowed, and the revenue's appeal was dismissed.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "Sec. 250 of the Income Tax Act", "Sec. 143(2) of the Income

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

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

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

COWTOWN SOFTWARE DESIGN PVT. LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS NABHIRAJ SOFTWARE DESIGN PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY.C.I.T.(TDS) 2(3) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

House that the amended provisions of tax deduction at source would apply when a client makes payment to an advertising agency and not when advertising agency makes payment to the 7 M/s. Cowtown Software Design Pvt.Ltd., media, which includes both print and electronic media. The deduction is required to be made at the rate of 1 per cent

REKHA MAHESHWARI ,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

house property’ from rent of Rs.26,00,000/- received from tenant SVIL Mines Ltd in respect of property situated at D-10, Ring Road, Rajouri 3 Mrs. Rekha Maheshwari Garden, New Delhi. The assessee had claimed credit of TDS of Rs.2,60,000/- @ 10% which was deducted on rent u/s.194I of the Act by the tenant having TAN DELS25756D. Since