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

7. Per Contra, the Ld.DR submitted that the CIT(A) was correct in sustaining the income taxable under income from house property and sustaining the disallowance of expenditure. Whereas in respect of relief granted by the CIT(A), the revenue has filed a cross appeal. 8. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The Ld.AR submitted

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

7. Per Contra, the Ld.DR submitted that the CIT(A) was correct in sustaining the income taxable under income from house property and sustaining the disallowance of expenditure. Whereas in respect of relief granted by the CIT(A), the revenue has filed a cross appeal. 8. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The Ld.AR submitted

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

7. Per Contra, the Ld.DR submitted that the CIT(A) was correct in sustaining the income taxable under income from house property and sustaining the disallowance of expenditure. Whereas in respect of relief granted by the CIT(A), the revenue has filed a cross appeal. 8. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The Ld.AR submitted

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

7. Per Contra, the Ld.DR submitted that the CIT(A) was correct in sustaining the income taxable under income from house property and sustaining the disallowance of expenditure. Whereas in respect of relief granted by the CIT(A), the revenue has filed a cross appeal. 8. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The Ld.AR submitted

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

7. Per Contra, the Ld.DR submitted that the CIT(A) was correct in sustaining the income taxable under income from house property and sustaining the disallowance of expenditure. Whereas in respect of relief granted by the CIT(A), the revenue has filed a cross appeal. 8. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The Ld.AR submitted

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

7 are in\nrespect of allocating of expenses and we find the Ld.AR of\nthe assessee could able to substantiate with the information\nand details on the basis of allocation between Income from\nHouse property and Income from Business. We find there is\nno finding on these aspects on the submissions of the\nasssessee by the CIT(A). Therefore

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

7 are in\nrespect of allocating of expenses and we find the Ld.AR of\nthe assessee could able to substantiate with the information\nand details on the basis of allocation between Income from\nHouse property and Income from Business. We find there is\nno finding on these aspects on the submissions of the\nasssessee by the CIT(A). Therefore

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

7 are in\nrespect of allocating of expenses and we find the Ld.AR of\nthe assessee could able to substantiate with the information\nand details on the basis of allocation between Income from\nHouse property and Income from Business. We find there is\nno finding on these aspects on the submissions of the\nasssessee by the CIT(A). Therefore

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

7 are in\nrespect of allocating of expenses and we find the Ld.AR of\nthe assessee could able to substantiate with the information\nand details on the basis of allocation between Income from\nHouse property and Income from Business. We find there is\nno finding on these aspects on the submissions of the\nasssessee by the CIT(A). Therefore

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

7 are in\nrespect of allocating of expenses and we find the Ld.AR of\nthe assessee could able to substantiate with the information\nand details on the basis of allocation between Income from\nHouse property and Income from Business. We find there is\nno finding on these aspects on the submissions of the\nasssessee by the CIT(A). Therefore

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.

7. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in holding that the agreement between the assessee and the vendor a contract for sale/ return in spite of the fact that the sale prices of the goods to the customers were fixed mutually which is not as such

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:

7. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in holding that the agreement between the assessee and the vendor a contract for sale/ return in spite of the fact that the sale prices of the goods to the customers were fixed mutually which is not as such

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

7 ITA Nos. 707 & 708/Mum/2025- Shoppers Stop Limited the present case relates to the purchases made by the assessee from various vendors under the SOR model. From the details of these suppliers placed before us, it is noted that each of these suppliers are noted to be independent suppliers having their own existence, irrespective of the arrangement with assessee. Most

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

7 ITA Nos. 707 & 708/Mum/2025- Shoppers Stop Limited the present case relates to the purchases made by the assessee from various vendors under the SOR model. From the details of these suppliers placed before us, it is noted that each of these suppliers are noted to be independent suppliers having their own existence, irrespective of the arrangement with assessee. Most

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