THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

216 Property) 49. As evident from the above table, the assessee had earned the income from business and profession amounting to Rs. 37,09,64,614/-. The same includes Rs. 83,50,855/- pertaining to Cloths business and Rs. 31,21,93,241 pertaining to other service charges as well as income from events. The aforesaid presence of income from

ASST CIT CC 8(4), MUMBAI vs. PHOENIX MILLS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

216 Property) 49. As evident from the above table, the assessee had earned the income from business and profession amounting to Rs. 37,09,64,614/-. The same includes Rs. 83,50,855/- pertaining to Cloths business and Rs. 31,21,93,241 pertaining to other service charges as well as income from events. The aforesaid presence of income from

THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

216 Property) 49. As evident from the above table, the assessee had earned the income from business and profession amounting to Rs. 37,09,64,614/-. The same includes Rs. 83,50,855/- pertaining to Cloths business and Rs. 31,21,93,241 pertaining to other service charges as well as income from events. The aforesaid presence of income from

THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

216 Property) 49. As evident from the above table, the assessee had earned the income from business and profession amounting to Rs. 37,09,64,614/-. The same includes Rs. 83,50,855/- pertaining to Cloths business and Rs. 31,21,93,241 pertaining to other service charges as well as income from events. The aforesaid presence of income from

THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

216 Property) 49. As evident from the above table, the assessee had earned the income from business and profession amounting to Rs. 37,09,64,614/-. The same includes Rs. 83,50,855/- pertaining to Cloths business and Rs. 31,21,93,241 pertaining to other service charges as well as income from events. The aforesaid presence of income from

THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

216 Property) 49. As evident from the above table, the assessee had earned the income from business and profession amounting to Rs. 37,09,64,614/-. The same includes Rs. 83,50,855/- pertaining to Cloths business and Rs. 31,21,93,241 pertaining to other service charges as well as income from events. The aforesaid presence of income from

THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

216 Property) 49. As evident from the above table, the assessee had earned the income from business and profession amounting to Rs. 37,09,64,614/-. The same includes Rs. 83,50,855/- pertaining to Cloths business and Rs. 31,21,93,241 pertaining to other service charges as well as income from events. The aforesaid presence of income from

SMT.MANJU MAHENDRA GOYAL,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 19(2)(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2012-13 Smt. Manju Mahendra Goyal Income Tax Officer-19(2)(3), A/802, Surya Apartments, Room No.2018, Matru बनाम/ 53, Bhulabhai Desai Road, Mandir, Tardeo Road, Vs. Mumbai-400026 Mumbai-400007 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.Aafpg2990N

house and occupy the same. It is enough if the assessee established that the assessee had invested the entire net consideration within the stipulated period. The said view taken consistently by the Tribunal has been applied in these cases also. The Tribunal has distinguished the Delhi High Court judgment in the case of D.P. Mehta v. CIT reported

TODI INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 8(3)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

section 27(iiib), the appellant\nwas 'deemed owner of the premises as it had acquired leasehold\nright in the land for more than 12 years; in agreements for sub-\nlicensing the words lease compensation were used instead of\nlicense fees and deposits were referred as 'sub-lease deposits",\nproperty tax had been levied on the assessee.\n14.3. The Tribunal also

M/S ARENA ENTERPRISES ,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, , MUMBAI-17

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Arena Enterprise V. Pcit –Mumbai-17 Cts No. 20, Arena Space, Village Majas Room No. 120, 1St Floor Jvlr, Behind Majas Depot Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C-43 Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai - 400060 G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra(E), Mumbai - 400051 Pan: Aanfa3473E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Ms. Mrugakshi Joshi Department Represented By : Shri Jagadish Jangid

216/- and depreciation on Furniture & Fixtures of Rs. 5,27,133/-stands disallowed as these expenditure are not allowable under the head Income From House Property. Thus, the Computation of Income discloses all allowable/disallowable which are correctly computed and offered for income. 2. Interest paid to Partners B. It is mentioned in the notice that the assessee firm has paid

SURINCO WORKWEAR P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(3)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1290/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 बिाम/ M/S. Surinco Workwear Ito 8(3)(2) Private Ltd., R.No. 412, 36, Marol Industrial Aayakar Bhavan, V. Estate, Mumbai 400021 M. Vasanji Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 059 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacs5694K (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Ms. Heena Sheth Revenue By: Shri. O.P Meena (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 04.02.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01.05.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 1290/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 01.11.2016 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-18/It-126/Ito-8(3)(2)/14-15, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-18, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2009-10, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Penalty Order Dated 28.03.2014 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2009- 10. I.T.A. No.1290/Mum/2017

House Property‟ and deduction u/s 24(1) was allowed. The assessee also relied upon decision of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd (2013) 259 CTR 383 (Bom) and it was contended that mere change of head of income by authorities to bring the income to tax which otherwise was declared

ACIT CIRCLE-1 , KALYAN vs. SHRI. KRISHNAN MUTHUKUMAR , THANE

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Acit, Circle-1 Shri Krishnan Muthukumar 1St Floor, Mohan Plaza, Vs. 31/348, Aksharmahol Chs, Wayale Nagar, Kalyan, Telang Cross Road, West – 421301 Road No.1, Matunga (East) Mumbai -400 019 Pan No. Aakpm0170D (Revenue) (Assessee)

section 54F. Hence, in my considered view, the appellant as on the date of transfer of original asset has only one residential house which was capable of generating house property income. Furthermore, during the appellate proceedings, I have examined income tax returns of previous years and verified that the appellant had never claimed deduction

PIRAMAL HEALTHCARE LTD ( EARLIER KNOWNAS NICHOLAS PIRAMAL INDIA LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 7(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Piramal Enterprises Dy. Commissioner Of Limited (Formerly Known Income Tax, As Piramal Healthcare Range-8(2)(1), Limited) (Earlier Known As Mumbai. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd.), Vs. Piramal Tower, Agastya Corporate Park, Lbs Marg, Kamani Junction, Kurla (West), Mumbai – 400 070 Pan: Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Piramal Enterprises Income Tax, Limited (Formerly Known Circle-8(2)(1), As Piramal Healthcare [Erstwhile Dcit Circle- Ltd.) (As Ultimate 7(1)], Successor To Nicholas Vs. Mumbai. Piramal India Ltd.), Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013 Pan: Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent)

house property" and to direct the Assessing Officer to grant deduction u/s.24(a). 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer in respect of deduction of Rs.24285714/- claimed u/s.35A in respect of the acquisition of the trade mark by M/s.Sarabhai Piramal

ADDL CIT RG 7(1), MUMBAI vs. PIRAMAL ENTERPRISES LTD (FORMERLY KNWON AS PIRAMAL HEALTHCARE LTD) (AS ULTIMATE SUCCESSOR TO NICHOLAS PIRAMAL INDIA LTD), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Piramal Enterprises Dy. Commissioner Of Limited (Formerly Known Income Tax, As Piramal Healthcare Range-8(2)(1), Limited) (Earlier Known As Mumbai. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd.), Vs. Piramal Tower, Agastya Corporate Park, Lbs Marg, Kamani Junction, Kurla (West), Mumbai – 400 070 Pan: Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Piramal Enterprises Income Tax, Limited (Formerly Known Circle-8(2)(1), As Piramal Healthcare [Erstwhile Dcit Circle- Ltd.) (As Ultimate 7(1)], Successor To Nicholas Vs. Mumbai. Piramal India Ltd.), Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013 Pan: Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent)

house property" and to direct the Assessing Officer to grant deduction u/s.24(a). 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer in respect of deduction of Rs.24285714/- claimed u/s.35A in respect of the acquisition of the trade mark by M/s.Sarabhai Piramal

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-23(3), MUMBAI vs. VISHAL DILIP SANKHE, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year : 2012-13

section 54 of the Income tax Act, 1961. In this case, Supreme Court dealt with transactions of immovable property of the nature of 'GPA-sales' or 'SA/GPA/WILL transfers'. The Supreme Court was never considered the issue of allow ability of deduction u/s. 54/54F in respect of investment made for booking and allotment of new residential house. Therefore

DCIT CENT. CIR. -4(1), CENTRAL RANGE-4, MUMBAI vs. M/S. RUNWAL DEVELOPERS P. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sood

section 24(1) on account of repairs and accordingly, sum of Rs.3,75,15,126/- was offered as taxable income. The AO observed that the assessee, while computing its income from business has failed to apportion and disallow expenses debited to the profit and loss account which can be attributable to rental income earned by it. Since the assessee

RUNWAL DEVELOPEMENT P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 23, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No 4824/Mum/2014 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

section 24(1) on account of repairs and accordingly, sum of Rs.3,75,15,126/- was offered as taxable income. The AO observed that the assessee, while computing its income from business has failed to apportion and disallow expenses debited to the profit and loss account which can be attributable to rental income earned by it. Since the assessee

ITO 3(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. BHARAT TILES AND MARBLE P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

House property as per the provisions of section 22 to 24 of the Act. The assessee also contended that it was received compensation for providing business support and auxillary support for the use of premises as well as charges for the ready use of work station, cabins, etc. but the AO observed that there were no specific services and assessed