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

194I of the Act in respect of the house property income i.e rental income and whereas in respect of the amenities or services provided, TDS was deducted u/sec 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

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

194I of the Act in respect of the house property income i.e rental income and whereas in respect of the amenities or services provided, TDS was deducted u/sec 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

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

194I of the Act in respect of the house property income i.e rental income and whereas in respect of the amenities or services provided, TDS was deducted u/sec 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

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

194I of the Act in respect of the house property income i.e rental income and whereas in respect of the amenities or services provided, TDS was deducted u/sec 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

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

194I of the Act in respect of the house property income i.e rental income and whereas in respect of the amenities or services provided, TDS was deducted u/sec 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

NISARG REALTORS PVT LTD.,THANE vs. ACIT 15 (2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Nisarg Realtors Pvt. Ltd. The Asst. Commissioner Of Office No. 2 & 3, Meezzanine Income–Tax Flr Vihang Vihar Circle 15(2)(1), Vs. 4Th Floor, 403, Aayakar Bhavan, Panchpakahadi, Thane West, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai–400 602 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.Aahca9368D Assessee By : Ms. Nishita Mandalaywala, Ca Revenue By : Shri C.T. Mathews, Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.04.2022

house property. 07. The learned Departmental Representative vehemently supported the order of the lower authorities. It was submitted that:– i. TDS was deducted on above sum under section 194I

M/S. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO(TDS)-2(3), MUMBAI

Appeal is partly allowed

Housing Board). Both the 5 Assessment Year: 2010-11 aforesaid organizations were duly registered under Section 12AA of the Act and therefore, the receipts of the aforesaid amount were not liable to tax in their respective hands. Thus, the Appellant was not under obligation to deduct tax from the same. Without prejudice to the aforesaid contention, the Ld. Authorised Representative

ITO 14(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ALTITUS MANAGEMENT ADVISORS P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ito 14(1)(1) M/S Altitus Managment R. No. 431, 4Th Floor, Advisors P. Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Metropolitan Building Block Mumbai: 400 020. E, 5Th Floor, Bandra Kurla Vs. Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400 051 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aafca2213B (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

194I treating the payment as rent. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deduction of interest of Rs.33,86,952/ - without appreciating the fact that the assessee has taken loan for the working capital requirements and not for the purpose of acquiring/constructing the property in question

TRIMURTI FILMS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT ,CIRCLE - 16 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Trimurti Films Pvt. Ltd., Acit, Circle 16(1), B-11, Commerce Centre, Tardeo Vs. 467, Aayakar Bhavan, 4Th Floor, Road, Mumbai-400034. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaact 4118 M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Mihir C. Naniwadekar, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Vijay Kumar Menon, Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/06/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/08/2021

house property". Specific provisions prevail over general provisions. The Company satisfied all conditions of being classified as an "Owner” for the purposes of Section 22 of the Act. Trimurti Films Pvt. Ltd. 9 6. The Dahisar land is reflected as a capital asset in the fixed assets schedule and no depreciation is claimed on it. 7. Service Tax department

ITO TDS 2 3 1, MUMBAI vs. NATHANI PAREKH CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Housing Society Ltd. towards alternate accommodation charges/hardship allowance/rent are liable for tax deduction under section 194I of the Act. 7. The ld. DR submitted that the CIT(A) has given relief to the assessee stating that section 194I of the Act is not applicable with respect to the payment of alternate accommodation charges for the reason that there

ITO(TDS)-2(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. NATHANI PAREKH CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Housing Society Ltd. towards alternate accommodation charges/hardship allowance/rent are liable for tax deduction under section 194I of the Act. 7. The ld. DR submitted that the CIT(A) has given relief to the assessee stating that section 194I of the Act is not applicable with respect to the payment of alternate accommodation charges for the reason that there

ITO(TDS)-2(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. NATHANI PAREKH CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Housing Society Ltd. towards alternate accommodation charges/hardship allowance/rent are liable for tax deduction under section 194I of the Act. 7. The ld. DR submitted that the CIT(A) has given relief to the assessee stating that section 194I of the Act is not applicable with respect to the payment of alternate accommodation charges for the reason that there

ITO(TDS)-2(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. NATHANI PAREKH CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Housing Society Ltd. towards alternate accommodation charges/hardship allowance/rent are liable for tax deduction under section 194I of the Act. 7. The ld. DR submitted that the CIT(A) has given relief to the assessee stating that section 194I of the Act is not applicable with respect to the payment of alternate accommodation charges for the reason that there

SAHANA DWELLERS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

property where they were staying for construction of new building. On a perusal of section 194I of the Act, it is seen that under clause (i) rent has been defined as under:– “Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,— (i) "rent" means any payment, by whatever name called, under any lease, sub-lease, tenancy or any other agreement or arrangement

LEWIS FAMILY TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO - 22(2)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

house property‟ and 30% standard deduction would be allowed thereon. However, in respect of rent received for furniture and fixtures etc., totaling to Rs.23,02,799/- the ld. AO observed that standard deduction @30% would not be eligible as the same would get taxed under the head „income from other sources‟. 4.1. It was pointed out by the assessee before

BALAJI INFRASTRUCTURE & DEVELOPMENT CO.,MUMBAI vs. ITO 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, ground no. 2 raised by the assessee is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalbalaji Infrastructure & Development Company Limited, 6Th Floor, New Excelsior Building, A. K. Nayak Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Pan: Aaacb8155C ...... Appellant Vs. Ito-2(1) (1), R. No. 561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai- 400 020 ..... Respondent

section 32(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the reasons for doing so are wrong and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, provisions of the income Tax Act, 1961 and rules made thereunder. 3 Balaji Infrastructure & Development Company Limited 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in laws, the learned

M/S MAFATLAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

house property. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance made under section 40(a)(ia) and the disallowance of advances written off. Further aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. Disallowance under section 14A – Ground No.1 4. During the year under consideration, the assessee declared exempt dividend income of Rs.24,89,958/-. The assessee has made a suo motu

SHREE JALARAM BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-32(3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal file by the assessee is allowed

property where they were staying for construction of new building. On a perusal of section 194I of the Act, it is seen that under clause (i) rent has been defined as under:– “Explanation.-For the purposes of this section,- (i) "rent" means any payment, by whatever name called, under any lease, sub-lease, tenancy or any other agreement or arrangement