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

DCIT 14(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. MILESTONE CITY COMPLEX P.LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Amit Shukla (Jm)

1)(a), then such higher actual annual rent would constitute the annual value of the property. It is important to bear in mind that under section 22, the measure of income from house property is its annual value. The annual value is to be decided in accordance with section 23

INDOKEM LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT CIR 6, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed

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

house property is measured as annual value of the property. Section 23 contemplates the manner in which the annual value of the property has to be determined. As per subsection (1

INDOKEM LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT CR 6, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed

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

house property is measured as annual value of the property. Section 23 contemplates the manner in which the annual value of the property has to be determined. As per subsection (1

INDOKEM LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT CR 6, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed

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

house property is measured as annual value of the property. Section 23 contemplates the manner in which the annual value of the property has to be determined. As per subsection (1

INDOKEM LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT CR 6, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed

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

house property is measured as annual value of the property. Section 23 contemplates the manner in which the annual value of the property has to be determined. As per subsection (1

INDOKEM LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT CIR 6, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed

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

house property is measured as annual value of the property. Section 23 contemplates the manner in which the annual value of the property has to be determined. As per subsection (1

INDOKEM LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT CR 6, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed

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

house property is measured as annual value of the property. Section 23 contemplates the manner in which the annual value of the property has to be determined. As per subsection (1

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

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

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

property, whether self-occupied or not, and also of such deeming in respect of all such residential houses, save one (sections 23(2), 23(3) and 23(4)). There is also no anomaly in the provision, which is sought to be pleaded with reference to the word “whole” occurring in s. 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

SONU REALTORS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 14(3)(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodita No. 2892 /Mum/2016 & Sonu Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Dcit – 14(3)(2) Plot No. 219, Laalasis, Mumbai 11Th Road, Chembur, Vs. Mumbai 400 071. Pan – Aaacs7073C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. J.P Bairagra Respondent By : Shri Rajat Mittal Date Of Hearing : 05.07.2018 Date Of Pronouncement :19.09.2018 O R D E R Per Ravish Sood, Jm The Present Appeals Filed By The Assessee For A.Y 2011-12 & A.Y 2012-13 Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Passed By The Cit(A)-22, Mumbai, Dated 22.01.2016 & 27.09.2016. As A Common Issue Is Involved In The Aforementioned Appeals, Thus, The Same Are Being Taken Up & Disposed Off Together By Way Of A Consolidate Order. We Shall First Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y 2011-12. The Assessee Assailing The Order Passed By The Cit(A) Has Raised Before Us The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

house is actually let‟ in sub-section (3) of Sec. 23, unlike the expression „property is let‟ used in Sec. 23(1

SONU REALTORS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 14(3)(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodita No. 2892 /Mum/2016 & Sonu Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Dcit – 14(3)(2) Plot No. 219, Laalasis, Mumbai 11Th Road, Chembur, Vs. Mumbai 400 071. Pan – Aaacs7073C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. J.P Bairagra Respondent By : Shri Rajat Mittal Date Of Hearing : 05.07.2018 Date Of Pronouncement :19.09.2018 O R D E R Per Ravish Sood, Jm The Present Appeals Filed By The Assessee For A.Y 2011-12 & A.Y 2012-13 Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Passed By The Cit(A)-22, Mumbai, Dated 22.01.2016 & 27.09.2016. As A Common Issue Is Involved In The Aforementioned Appeals, Thus, The Same Are Being Taken Up & Disposed Off Together By Way Of A Consolidate Order. We Shall First Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y 2011-12. The Assessee Assailing The Order Passed By The Cit(A) Has Raised Before Us The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

house is actually let‟ in sub-section (3) of Sec. 23, unlike the expression „property is let‟ used in Sec. 23(1

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

ASST CIT 18(2), MUMBAI vs. LAXMI FINANCE & LEASING COMPANIES COMMERICAL PREMISES CO OP SOC. LTD, MUMBAI

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

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

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

JAYABEN V. SHETH & OTHERS,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 19 (2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 7219 /मुं/2018 ("न.व.2015-16) M/S.Jayaben V Sheth & Others, 3, Ground Floor, Vincent View, Dr. B.A.Road, Dadar(E), Mumbai 400 014. : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant Pan:Aadfj4327Q बनाम/ Vs. The Acit 19(2), Matru Mandir, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 034 : ""थ"/ Respondent

House Property’ against ‘Income from Other Sources’. The same was disallowed by Assessing Officer while processing assessee’s return under section 143(1) of the Act. 5. The contention of the assessee is that as per provisions, of section 23

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