DCIT-CC-5(4), MUMBAI vs. RAGHULEELA ESTATES PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

section 24(b) was allowed, thus there cannot be a question of disallowance of interest for remaining part of the year in the hands of the assessee company. 25. In view of the above facts and material placed on record, it is clear that the subsequent loan were taken for the repayment of earlier loans which were used for acquisition

M/S QUALITY APPAREL EXPORTERS PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 11(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the Ground No

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 2352 & 2353/Mum/2019 (A.Y: 2012-13 & 2013-14) M/S. Quality Apparel Vs. Ito -Ward -11(1)(1) Exports Pvt Ltd, Room No. 201, Unit No.4, Wicel Bldg, 2Ndfloor,Aayakar Seepz, Midc, Moral, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai Mumbai – 400020 400093 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacq1711F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Mr.T.Shankar.Dr Date Of Hearing 20.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 04.05.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: These Are The Appeals Filed The By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 250 Of The Act.

196 1)42 TTR 49 (SC) and Shambhu Investment (P) Limited Vs. CIT, (263 ITR 143)(SC) and Madras High Court, in the case of CIT vs. Chennai Properties & Development Ltd. 266 ITR 685, such income could be considered only under the head "Income from House Property. 4.3.3 I have considered the contentions of the Assessing Officer that appellant

M/S. NICHOLAS PIRAMAL INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT CUR 7(1),

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanpiramal Enterprises Ltd Vs. Acit, Circle – 7(1) (Formerly Known As Aayakar Bhavan Piramal Healthcare Ltd) Mumbai – 400020. (Before Known As Nicholas Piramal Ind) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400013. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn4538P Appellant .. Respondent Dcit, Circle – 7(1) Vs. Piramal Enterprises Ltd Aayakar Bhyavan (Formerly Known As Mumbai – 400 020. Piramal Healthcare Ltd) (Before Known As Nicholas Piramal Ind) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn4538P Assessee By : Mr.Ronak Doshi & Ms.Manshi Padhiyar.Ar Revenue By : Mr.S.N.Kabra.Dr

196 1 since software purchased is not a product but only is in nature of a commercial right. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to allow depreciation in respect of the assets transferred to the assessee as a result of merger of BMIL

DCIT-6(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. AASAN CORPORATE SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhaasan Corporate Vs. Dcit, Circle 6(1)(1) Solutions Private Limited 563B, 5Th Floor, 4Th Floor, Piramal Tower Aayakar Bhavan, Annexe, Ganpatrao Kadam Maharishi Karve Road, Marg Lower, Parel Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400013 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aajca7980P Appellant .. Respondent Dcit, Circle 6(1)(1) Vs. M/S Aasan Corporate Room No. 504, 5 Th Floor, Solutions Private Limited Araykar Bhavan 4Th Floor, Piramal Tower M.K. Road, Annexe, Ganpatrao Mumbai – 400 020 Kadam Marg Lower, Parel Mumbai – 400013 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aajca7980P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ronak Doshi A/W Priyank Gandhi Respondent By : Ajay Chandra Date Of Hearing 21.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 05.01.2024

House Property and thus the question of disallowance of depreciation amounting to Rs. 9,22,25,022 made by the AO does not arise 2. The Appellant prays that the disallowance of depreciation amounting to Rs. 9,22,25,022/- based on aforesaid incorrect premise be deleted WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND I: GROUND IV: ADDITION OF NOTIONAL RENT AT ADHOC

AASAN CORPORATE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 6(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and\nappeal of the revenue is dismissed

Section 196(iv) of the Act.\n3. The Appellant therefore, prays that the disallowance made u/s.\n40(a)(ia) amounting to Rs. 3,64,91,478/- be deleted.\nWITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND I\nGROUND VI: DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S 35DD OF THE ACT\nAMOUNTING TO RS, 5,00,00,000/-:\n1. On the facts and in the circumstances

DCIT- 8(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. PIRAMAL ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

Section 14A of the Act liable to be deleted and order of Ld. CIT (A) is sustained on this count. Resultantly, ground nos. VI, VII and VII raised by the revenue is dismissed. 9. As regards, Ground No. IX (A.Y 2010-11) - Profit from sale of flats to be treated as business income I. Facts of the Case: During

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 2(1)(3), MUMBAI vs. KAMAT HOTELS INDIA LIMITED, MUMBAI

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

house property to assess the same as income from property under section 24 of the Act. c. Learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the aforesaid income of 19 ITA No. 913/Mum/2024, ITA 894-Mum-2024 & 1483/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 Rs.11,39,55,350/- was already booked by the appellant as income from hotel business

KAMAT HOTELS (INDIA) LIMITED,VILE PARLE MUMBAI vs. ACIT, MUMBAI MAHARASHTRA

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

house property to assess the same as income from property under section 24 of the Act. c. Learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the aforesaid income of 19 ITA No. 913/Mum/2024, ITA 894-Mum-2024 & 1483/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 Rs.11,39,55,350/- was already booked by the appellant as income from hotel business

KAMAT HOTELS (INDIA) LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, MUMBAI

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

house property to assess the same as income from property under section 24 of the Act. c. Learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the aforesaid income of 19 ITA No. 913/Mum/2024, ITA 894-Mum-2024 & 1483/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 Rs.11,39,55,350/- was already booked by the appellant as income from hotel business

M/S WELL WISHER CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD.,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT WARD 18 (1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

house property’, it does not obfuscate true character of income/ loss from such activity. Such act do not make any real difference to the Revenue. The assessee further contends that the income was to be assessed under different head enumerated in section 14 as per true nature and character of the income and not merely on the basis of classification

DCIT(E)-2(1), MUMBAI vs. NEHRU CENTRE, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Bledcit (E) – 2(1) V. Nehru Centre Room No. 519, 5Th Floor Discovery Of India Building Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug 13Th Floor, Dr. Annie Besant Road Worli, Mumbai - 400018 Mumbai – 400 012 Pan: Aaatn2536J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dilip Thakkar Department By : Shri Dilipkumar Shah

House, CBDT issued a Circular No. 11 of 2008 dated 19th December 2008 explaining the amendment as under:- 3. The newly inserted proviso to section 2(15) will apply only to entities whose purpose is advancement of any other object of general public utility i.e., the fourth limb of the definition of charitable purpose contained in section 2(15). Hence

MAHARASHTRA HOUSING & AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Us:

Housing & Area Development Authority Vs. Dy. DIT (Exemption)-1(1) (xv) Does ii sell properties by inviting bids and allotting the property on the basis of a draw of lots rather than allotting the properties by holding an auction which would ensure the receipt of the highest price? (xvi) Does the Institution sell its properties primarily to the economically less

DHANANJAY MADHUKAR NAIK,MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledhananjay Madhukar Naik V. Ito 12(3)(3) 306, Meghdoot Chsl, Sahaji Raje Marg Room No. 1631, 16Th Floor Koldongri, Vile Parle (W) Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai- 400057 Mumbai- 400021 Pan: Alrpn7498M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Anil Masand Department Represented By : Shri P.D. Chougule

house thereon. It was based on this bona fide intention assessee had claimed exemption under section 54. 12. Therefore, in my opinion no tax should be levied on the amount lying unutilized in the capital gains scheme account as that would cause genuine hardship on me.” 7. After considering the submissions of the assessee, Assessing Officer observed from the record

SANJEEV RAJENDRA PANDIT,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (CPC), MUMBAI

In the result, both these appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2020-21 & Assessment Year: 2021-22 Sanjeev Rajendra Pandit, The Assistant Director Of Top Floor Madhav Vilas, 8 Income Tax (Cpc), Setalwad Road, Off Neapean Vs. Post Bag No.2, Electronic Sea Road, Cumballa Hill, S.O., City Post Office, Mumbai-400026. Bangalore-560500. Pan No. Agypp 4026 D Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Milin Dattani, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Aditya M. Rai, Dr : Date Of Hearing 18/01/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 24/01/2023

196/ /- in respect of TDS on rental income from in respect of TDS on rental income from property at Navbharat Chambers property at Navbharat Chambers as against credit of as against credit of ₹1,78,032/- Sanjeev Rajendra Pandit claimed in the return of income. The Ld. Assessing Officer also did claimed in the return of income. The Ld. Assessing

SANJEEV RAJENDRA PANDIT,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (CPC) , MUMBAI

In the result, both these appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2020-21 & Assessment Year: 2021-22 Sanjeev Rajendra Pandit, The Assistant Director Of Top Floor Madhav Vilas, 8 Income Tax (Cpc), Setalwad Road, Off Neapean Vs. Post Bag No.2, Electronic Sea Road, Cumballa Hill, S.O., City Post Office, Mumbai-400026. Bangalore-560500. Pan No. Agypp 4026 D Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Milin Dattani, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Aditya M. Rai, Dr : Date Of Hearing 18/01/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 24/01/2023

196/ /- in respect of TDS on rental income from in respect of TDS on rental income from property at Navbharat Chambers property at Navbharat Chambers as against credit of as against credit of ₹1,78,032/- Sanjeev Rajendra Pandit claimed in the return of income. The Ld. Assessing Officer also did claimed in the return of income. The Ld. Assessing

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. WADHWAGROUP HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and that of the\nassessee is partly allowed

Section\n37(1) of the Income Tax Act,\n1961?\n9. The Applicant craves to leave, to add, to amend and/or to\nalter any of the ground of appeal, if need be.”\n5. Representatives of both the sides were heard at length. Case\nrecords carefully perused and with the assistance of the Counsels, the\nrelevant documentary evidences brought on record duly

WADHWAGROUP HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and that of the\nassessee is partly allowed

Section\n37(1) of the Income Tax Act,\n1961?\n9. The Applicant craves to leave, to add, to amend and/or to\nalter any of the ground of appeal, if need be.”\n5. Representatives of both the sides were heard at length. Case\nrecords carefully perused and with the assistance of the Counsels, the\nrelevant documentary evidences brought on record duly

DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TATA INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No 2(a) & (b) of the revenue in ITA No. 4109/Mum/2012, therefore stands dismissed

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

House property. 5. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of expenditure of Rs. 20,75.457/- incurred as brokerage expenses for the purpose of computing income from Business or Profession. 6. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of legal & professional fees of Rs.1,99,50,893/- paid by the Appellant, for the purpose of computing income from