SUMAN GUPTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - CC- 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2015

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Ita Nos. 3860 & 3859/Mum/2018 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Smt. Suman Gupta, Dy. Cit Cc-4(2), 6Th New Harileela House, Air India Building, 19Th Mint Road, Fort, Vs. Floor, Room No. 1918, Mumbai-400 001. Nariman Point, Mumbai-21. Pan No. Ahqpg 0220 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Bhupendra Karkhanis & Mr. Aakash Marthak & Mr. Vijay Bhatt, Ars Revenue By : Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 02/03/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 27/04/2023 Order

house property is measured as annual value of the pro is measured as annual value of the property. The determination of The determination of annual value has been contemplated in section 23 of the Act. For annual value has been contemplated in section 23 of the annual value has been contemplated in section 23 of the ready reference, said section

SUMAN P KHURANA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed accordingly

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2415/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Suman P. Khurana बिधम/ Acit, Central Circle-3(2) Room No.402, 4Th Floor, 501, Raheja Centre, Free Press Vs. Journal Marg, Nariman Point, Aayakar Bhawan, Maharshi Mumbai-400021. Karve Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020.S स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aahpk0190Q (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Shekhar Gupta Revenue By: Shri Hoshang B. Irani सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 24/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 21.02.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -51, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2012- 13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On The Facts Of The Case In Estimating The Annual Value Of The Property At Maker Chambers Iv, Nariman Point, Mumbai At Rs.82,86,301/- As Against Nil Declared By The Assessee & Denying The Exemption Claimed U/S 23(1)(C) By The Assessee. A.Y. 2012-13 2. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On The Facts Of The Case In Estimating The Value Of The Property At Gujranwala Town, Delhi At Rs.6,60,000/- As Against Nil Declared By The Assessee & Denying The Exemption Claimed U/S 23(1)(C) By The Assessee.

house is actually let' as stands gathered from a conjoint reading of sub-section (2) to (4) of Sec. 23, it can safely and inescapably be gathered that the conscious, purposive and intentional usage of the aforesaid term 'Property is let' in Sec. 23(1

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX -23(1), MUMBAI vs. LAXMI FINANCE AND LEASING COMPANY CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue and Cross\nObjections of the assessee are dismissed

house property should\nbe taken as nil is as specified in section 23(2) of the Act.\nUnder section 23(1

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -23(1), MUMBAI vs. LAXMI FINANCE AND LEASING COMPANIES CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue and Cross

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

property is also required to be treated as nil, thereby taking it out of the ambit of section 23(1) of the Act. Section 23(3)(a) makes it clear that section 23(2) would not apply if the house

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-23(1) , MUMBAI vs. M/S LAXMI FINANCE & LEASING COMPANIES COMMERCIAL PREMISES CO-OP SOC. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit – 23(1) V. M/S. Laxmi Finance & Leasing Companies Commercial Premises Room No. 113, 1St Floor Co-Op. Soc., Limited Matru Mandir, Tardev Road C-25, G-Block, Mumbai – 400 007 Laxmi Towers, Near Icici Bank Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (E), Mumbai -400051 Pan: Aabal0964G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Madhur Agrawal Department Represented By : Shri Manoj Sinha

property is also required to be treated as nil, thereby taking it out of the 8 M/s. Laxmi Finance & Leasing Companies Commercial Premises Co-Op. Soc., Limited ambit of section 23(1) of the Act. Section 23(3)(a) makes it clear that section 23(2) would not apply if the house

ARIHANT DEVELOPERS ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -1, KALYAN

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are\ndismissed

23 of the Act. ‘Owner\nof the house property' is defined in Section 27 of the Act which includes\ncertain situations where a person not actually the owner shall be treated as\ndeemed owner of a building or part thereof. In the present case, the appellant\nis held to be “deemed owner” of the property in question by virtue

DY..C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S STATE BANK OF MYSORE, BANGALORE

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

23. The ld. AR in this regard placed reliance on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee's own case for AY 2008-09 where it has been held that “34. We noted that Section 43B(f) of the Act seeks to allow on cash basis any sum payable by an assessee as an employer in lieu

STATE BANK OF MYSORE,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

23. The ld. AR in this regard placed reliance on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee's own case for AY 2008-09 where it has been held that “34. We noted that Section 43B(f) of the Act seeks to allow on cash basis any sum payable by an assessee as an employer in lieu

MORA] FINANZ CORPORATION,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRLE - 5(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

House Property. The appellant cannot force the AO to adopt a particular method of estimating the ALV. Therefore, this argument is also rejected. 5.6. The appellant has also submitted that the premises in question remained vacant throughout the year and hence the appellant is eligible for vacancy allowance under proviso to section 23(1

MORAJ FINANZ CORPORATION,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 5(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

House Property. The appellant cannot force the AO to adopt a particular method of estimating the ALV. Therefore, this argument is also rejected. 5.6. The appellant has also submitted that the premises in question remained vacant throughout the year and hence the appellant is eligible for vacancy allowance under proviso to section 23(1

MORAJ FINANZ CORPORATION,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCLT CENTRAL CIRLE - 5(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

House Property. The appellant cannot force the AO to adopt a particular method of estimating the ALV. Therefore, this argument is also rejected. 5.6. The appellant has also submitted that the premises in question remained vacant throughout the year and hence the appellant is eligible for vacancy allowance under proviso to section 23(1

ARIHANT DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -1, KALYAN

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are\ndismissed

23 of the Act. ‘Owner\nof the house property' is defined in Section 27 of the Act which includes\ncertain situations where a person not actually the owner shall be treated as\ndeemed owner of a building or part thereof. In the present case, the appellant\nis held to be “deemed owner” of the property in question by virtue

ARIHANT DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -1, KALYAN

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are\ndismissed

23 of the Act. ‘Owner\nof the house property' is defined in Section 27 of the Act which includes\ncertain situations where a person not actually the owner shall be treated as\ndeemed owner of a building or part thereof. In the present case, the appellant\nis held to be “deemed owner” of the property in question by virtue

ARIHANT DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -1 , KALYAN

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are\ndismissed

23 of the Act. ‘Owner\nof the house property' is defined in Section 27 of the Act which includes\ncertain situations where a person not actually the owner shall be treated as\ndeemed owner of a building or part thereof. In the present case, the appellant\nis held to be “deemed owner” of the property in question by virtue

MOHAN GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRLE - 5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

house property. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned lower authorities in assuming 5% of the cost of the investment as the annual value of the property which can be taxed under section 23 (1

MOHAN THANKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

house property. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned lower authorities in assuming 5% of the cost of the investment as the annual value of the property which can be taxed under section 23 (1

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

house property. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned lower authorities in assuming 5% of the cost of the investment as the annual value of the property which can be taxed under section 23 (1

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

house property. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned lower authorities in assuming 5% of the cost of the investment as the annual value of the property which can be taxed under section 23 (1