BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

261 results for “house property”+ Section 211clear

Sorted by relevance

Karnataka478Delhi380Mumbai261Bangalore160Chennai88Hyderabad87Jaipur53Calcutta51Kolkata48Raipur38Telangana32Chandigarh23Indore21Ahmedabad17Guwahati17Lucknow14Pune13Surat10Visakhapatnam8Rajkot6Kerala6Rajasthan5SC5Varanasi4Cuttack3Orissa2Jodhpur2Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)98Section 14A65Addition to Income58Section 153A52Disallowance45Section 1138Section 153C28Deduction28Section 26322Section 54

VAIJANTHI MAHAVIR OZA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(IT)-3(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 5799/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5799/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) बिाम/ Vaijanthi Mahavir Oza, Income Tax Officer- C/O. Chhajed & Doshi, (International Taxation)- 101, Hubtown Solaris, 3(3)(1) V. N.S Phadke Marg, Room No. 1628, Near East West Flyover, 16Th Floor Andheri (E), Air India Building Mumbai- 400069 Mumbai स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Abepo5631J (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Piyush Chhajjed Revenue By: Miss. Deepika Arora (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 09.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.04.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 5799/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 23.06.2017, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-57, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2014-15, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 23.12.2016 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2014-15. I.T.A. No.5799/Mum/2017

For Appellant: Shri. Piyush ChhajjedFor Respondent: Miss. Deepika Arora (DR)
Section 1Section 143(3)Section 54

Showing 1–20 of 261 · Page 1 of 14

...
21
Depreciation21
Section 12A19
Section 54F

property outside India was not allowed u/s 54F. iv. On the basis of these decisions, the AO makes an argument in favour of interpretation of the provisions of the Act in a holistic manner and in the appropriate context, to arrive at its proper meaning, that is, the context of section I.T.A. No.5799/Mum/2017 54. In the case laws cited

DCIT CEN CIR 8(4), MUMBAI vs. PHOENIX MILLS LTD, MUMBAI

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

ITA 3991/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ramesh C Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 3991/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 3992/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 3993/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 3994/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) बिधम/ Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Phoenix Mills Ltd. Income Tax, 462, Senapati Bapat Vs. Central Circle-8(4), Marg, Lower Parel, 6Th Floor, Room No. 658, Mumbai-400013. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacp 3325 J (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Awungshi Gimson (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 23(1)(c)Section 36

Section 14A, and is only to the extent of disallowing expenditure "incurred by the assessee in relation to the tax exemrjt income". This proportion or portion of the tax exempt income surely cannot swallow the entire amount as has happened in this case. 14.6. In view of the above judicial pronouncements, we do not find any infirmity in the order

FAROOQ ABDULLA MERCHANT,MUMBAI vs. ITO 23 (1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, Ground No. V raised by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7906/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Blefarooq Abdulla Merchant V. Income Tax Officer- Ward – 23(1)(4) Matru Mandir, Tardev Road A-1401, Poseidon Tower Mumbai – 400 007 Versova, Yari Road Above Indian Bank, Versova Andheri (W), Mumbai - 400061 Pan: Ahupm7426K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vimal Punamiya Department Represented By : Smt. Vranda U. Matkarni

Section 143(2)Section 54Section 54(1)

house consisting of several independent units cannot be permitted to act as an impediment to the allowance of the deduction under section 54/54F, it is neither expressly nor by necessary implication prohibited  CIT & ANR. vs. SMT. K.G. RUKMINIAMMA - 331 ITR 211 (Karnataka High Court) Capital gains-Exemption under s. 54-Investment in more than one residential houses/flats Assessee entered into

AMIRALI AKBARALI ENGINEER,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 24(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 289/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2012-13 Amirali Akbarali Engineer, Vs Acit, A/201, Senha Apna Ghar, Ward-24(1), Unit No.11, Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Swami Samarth Nagar, Mumbai Andheri (West), Mumbai-400053 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aacpe9331N

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54F

section which requires that the residential house should be built in a 28 Amirali Akbarali Engineer particular manner. A person may construct a house according to his requirements/needs and sometime due to compulsions. There may be several such consideration for a person while constructing a residential house. Identical ratio was laid down by Hon'ble Karnataka High Court

ACIT 4(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. THE NEW PIECE GOODS BAZAR CO. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the Revenues’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6496/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2020AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik (DR)For Respondent: Sh. B.V. Jhaveri (Adv.)
Section 143(3)Section 22Section 24

211 Taxman 383 (Bom), is that the services are only toward enjoyment of the house property and, accordingly, income therefrom assessable u/s. 22 r/w s.23. The ld. CIT(A), in appeal, was of the view that the assessee’s case is distinguishable from that in the case of J.K. Investors (Bombay) Ltd. (supra), in which case the services were toward

DY CIT DD-4(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S SHETH DEVELOPERS P. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 12/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 23(5)

Housing Development Pvt. Ltd., vs. DCIT in ITA No.2927/Mum/2019 dated 13/05/2021. 3.3. Respectfully following the same, we delete the addition made in the sum of Rs.35,79,549/- towards deemed notional rental income in respect of unsold flats held as ‘stock in trade’. Accordingly, the addition made in the sum of Rs.35,79,549/- towards notional rent is hereby directed

DY CIT DD-4(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S SHETH DEVELOPERS P. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 11/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)Section 23(5)

Housing Development Pvt. Ltd., vs. DCIT in ITA No.2927/Mum/2019 dated 13/05/2021. 3.3. Respectfully following the same, we delete the addition made in the sum of Rs.35,79,549/- towards deemed notional rental income in respect of unsold flats held as ‘stock in trade’. Accordingly, the addition made in the sum of Rs.35,79,549/- towards notional rent is hereby directed

M/S SHETH DEVELOPERS P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1953/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)Section 23(5)

Housing Development Pvt. Ltd., vs. DCIT in ITA No.2927/Mum/2019 dated 13/05/2021. 3.3. Respectfully following the same, we delete the addition made in the sum of Rs.35,79,549/- towards deemed notional rental income in respect of unsold flats held as ‘stock in trade’. Accordingly, the addition made in the sum of Rs.35,79,549/- towards notional rent is hereby directed

SHETH DEVELOPERS P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIECLE-4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1954/MUM/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 23(5)

Housing Development Pvt. Ltd., vs. DCIT in ITA No.2927/Mum/2019 dated 13/05/2021. 3.3. Respectfully following the same, we delete the addition made in the sum of Rs.35,79,549/- towards deemed notional rental income in respect of unsold flats held as ‘stock in trade’. Accordingly, the addition made in the sum of Rs.35,79,549/- towards notional rent is hereby directed

SHARAN HOSPITALITY P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 9(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 6717/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6717/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Sharan Hospitality Private Limited Dy. Cit – Circle 9(3) बनाम/ Ground Floor, Gys Infinity, Mumbai Paranjape ‘B’, Scheme, Subhas Road, Vs. Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-57 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aagcs 8608 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. Priyanka Jain ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K. Mahondas सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 26.5.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 12.9.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 18.9.2012, Dismissing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting Its Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2009- 10 Vide Order Dated 22.12.2011. 2. The Only Issue Arising In This Appeal Is The Correct Amount At Which The Annual Value In Respect Of The Assessee’S Swami Vivekanand (S.V.) Road, Mumbai Property

For Appellant: Ms. Priyanka JainFor Respondent: Shri K. Mahondas
Section 143(3)Section 22Section 23

211 (Ker). The observations by the Hon’ble Patna High Court in Maharajadhiraj of Darbhanga vs. CIT AIR (1931) Pat. 223 to the effect that the provision is applicable only to those cases in which the house property is habitually let to tenants, and the vacancies referred to are vacancies falling between different tenancies, was considered

ACIT CIR 12(3), MUMBAI vs. LAKE VIEW DEVELOPERS, MUMBAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed

ITA 4495/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3409/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Lake View Developers Addl. Cit, Range 12(3), बनाम/ 514, Dalamal Towers, Mumbai 211 F.P.J. Marg, Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai-400 021 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafl 0589 R (Assessee) : (Revenue) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4495/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बनाम/ Addl. Cit, Range 12(3), Lake View Developers Mumbai Mumbai-400 021 Vs. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafl 0589 R (Revenue) (Assessee) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4496/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Addl. Cit, Range 12(3), Omega Associates, बनाम/ Mumbai 514, Dalamal Tower, 211-F.P.J. Marg, Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai-400 021 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafl 0589 R (Revenue) : (Assessee) : Shri Chetan Karia Revenue By Assessee By : Shri R. P. Rastogi सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 03.5.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 28.7.2016 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri R. P. Rastogi
Section 143(3)Section 22

211-F.P.J. Marg, Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai-400 021 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. AAAFL 0589 R (Revenue) : (Assessee) : Shri Chetan Karia Revenue by Assessee by : Shri R. P. Rastogi सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 03.5.2016 Date of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 28.7.2016 Date of Pronouncement 2 ITA Nos. 3409, 4495 &4496/Mum/2013 (A.Y. 2009-10) Lake View Developers

MADHU B KHATRI,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 32 (2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s claim of deduction is allowed

ITA 6613/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Confirming The Sale Consideration Determined By Ld. Ao On Adopting The Market Value Of 2 Residential Flats, Ought To Have Considered The Understated Facts, Being;

Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 54Section 541

section require* that the residential house should he built in n particular manner, it sm.'/s that the income-tax authorities cannot insist upon that requirement." C) CIT vs. K.C. Rukminiamma 131 ITR 211 (Knr-HC) "The context in which the expression 'a residential house' is used in s. 54 makes it dear that it was not the intention

NILUFER SAYED,MUMBAI vs. ITO - 21(1)(3), MUMBAI

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 3474/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.3474/Mum/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Nilufer Sayed Income Tax Officer-25(3)(5) बना A-601, Leela Sagar Mumbai. म/ Yari Road, Versova Vs. Andheri West, Mumbai-400 061. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Cgtps-8161-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Stany Saldanha-Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Tharian Oommen- Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 19/01/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 25/01/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Stany Saldanha-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Tharian Oommen- Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54(1)

property’ with the words ‘one residential house’ with effect from 01/04/2015. The rationale of the amendment, as explained in clause 20.3 of the explanatory notes to the Finance Bill was as follows: - 20.3. Certain courts had interpreted that the exemption is also available if investment is made in more than one residential house. The benefit was intended for investment

M/S. HGP COMMUNITY PVT. LT D SUCESSOR TO ALPHA ASSOCIATES,MUMBAI vs. DY. C.I.T. .CENT. CIR.-1(2) , MUMBAI

In the result, the ground

ITA 1558/MUM/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant ()And Ms Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. K. Gopal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, CIT-DR

211, F P Old CGO Bldg. (Annexe), M.K. Road, J Marg, Nariman Point, M/s Alpha Associates ITA Nos. 1851 & 1846/M/2021 Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400021. 400021. PAN No. AADCH 8389 P AADCH 8389 P Appellant Respondent Revenue by : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, CIT-DR DR Assessee by Assessee by : Mr. K. Gopal, Sr. Adv. a/w Om Kandalkar, Adv. a/w Om Kandalkar

HGP COMMUNITY PVT.LTD SUCESSOR TO ALPHA ASSOCIATES,MUMBAI vs. DY.C.I.T.CENTRAL CIR -1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the ground

ITA 1559/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant ()And Ms Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. K. Gopal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, CIT-DR

211, F P Old CGO Bldg. (Annexe), M.K. Road, J Marg, Nariman Point, M/s Alpha Associates ITA Nos. 1851 & 1846/M/2021 Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400021. 400021. PAN No. AADCH 8389 P AADCH 8389 P Appellant Respondent Revenue by : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, CIT-DR DR Assessee by Assessee by : Mr. K. Gopal, Sr. Adv. a/w Om Kandalkar, Adv. a/w Om Kandalkar

DCIT CENT. CIR 1(2) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. ALPHA ASSOCIATES, MUMBAI

In the result, the ground

ITA 1851/MUM/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant ()And Ms Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. K. Gopal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, CIT-DR

211, F P Old CGO Bldg. (Annexe), M.K. Road, J Marg, Nariman Point, M/s Alpha Associates ITA Nos. 1851 & 1846/M/2021 Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400021. 400021. PAN No. AADCH 8389 P AADCH 8389 P Appellant Respondent Revenue by : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, CIT-DR DR Assessee by Assessee by : Mr. K. Gopal, Sr. Adv. a/w Om Kandalkar, Adv. a/w Om Kandalkar

M/S HGP COMMUNITY PVT. LTD SUCESSOR TO ALPHA ASSOCIATES,MUMBAI vs. DY.CIT CENT. CIR -1(2) MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the ground

ITA 1556/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant ()And Ms Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. K. Gopal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, CIT-DR

211, F P Old CGO Bldg. (Annexe), M.K. Road, J Marg, Nariman Point, M/s Alpha Associates ITA Nos. 1851 & 1846/M/2021 Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400021. 400021. PAN No. AADCH 8389 P AADCH 8389 P Appellant Respondent Revenue by : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, CIT-DR DR Assessee by Assessee by : Mr. K. Gopal, Sr. Adv. a/w Om Kandalkar, Adv. a/w Om Kandalkar

HGP COMMUNITY PVT.LTD SUCESSOR TO ALPHA ASSOCIATES,MUMBAI vs. DY.CIT CENT. CIR-1(2) , MUMBAI

In the result, the ground

ITA 1560/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant ()And Ms Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. K. Gopal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, CIT-DR

211, F P Old CGO Bldg. (Annexe), M.K. Road, J Marg, Nariman Point, M/s Alpha Associates ITA Nos. 1851 & 1846/M/2021 Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400021. 400021. PAN No. AADCH 8389 P AADCH 8389 P Appellant Respondent Revenue by : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, CIT-DR DR Assessee by Assessee by : Mr. K. Gopal, Sr. Adv. a/w Om Kandalkar, Adv. a/w Om Kandalkar

DCIT CENT. CIR-1(2) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. ALPHA ASSOCIATES, MUMBAI

In the result, the ground

ITA 1846/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant ()And Ms Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. K. Gopal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, CIT-DR

211, F P Old CGO Bldg. (Annexe), M.K. Road, J Marg, Nariman Point, M/s Alpha Associates ITA Nos. 1851 & 1846/M/2021 Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400021. 400021. PAN No. AADCH 8389 P AADCH 8389 P Appellant Respondent Revenue by : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, CIT-DR DR Assessee by Assessee by : Mr. K. Gopal, Sr. Adv. a/w Om Kandalkar, Adv. a/w Om Kandalkar

M/S HGP COMMUNITY PVT. LTD SUCESSOR TO ALPHA ASSOCIATES,MUMBAI vs. DY.CIT CENT. CIR -1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the ground

ITA 1557/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant ()And Ms Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. K. Gopal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, CIT-DR

211, F P Old CGO Bldg. (Annexe), M.K. Road, J Marg, Nariman Point, M/s Alpha Associates ITA Nos. 1851 & 1846/M/2021 Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400021. 400021. PAN No. AADCH 8389 P AADCH 8389 P Appellant Respondent Revenue by : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, CIT-DR DR Assessee by Assessee by : Mr. K. Gopal, Sr. Adv. a/w Om Kandalkar, Adv. a/w Om Kandalkar