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)

c) to take out those properties which are held by the owner for self-occupation from the ambit of the said clause. As noted hereinabove, section 23(2)(a) takes out a self-occupied residential house, or a part thereof, from the ambit of section 23(1

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

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

c) to take out those properties which are held by the owner for selfoccupation from the ambit of the said clause. As noted hereinabove, section 23(2)(a) takes out a self-occupied residential house, or a part thereof, from the ambit of section 23(1

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.

c) of Sec. 23(1) of the 'Act', unlike the term '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

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

c) to take out those properties which are held by the owner for self- occupation from the ambit of the said clause. As noted hereinabove, section 23(2)(a) takes out a self-occupied residential house, or a part thereof, from the ambit of section 23(1

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(1)(c

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon. & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon.M/S. Sonu Realtors Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle-14(3)(2), Plot No. 219, Laalasis, 11Th Mumbai Road, Chembur, Mumbai.

c) of Sec. 23(1) of the “Act‟, unlike the term „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

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)(c

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)(c

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)(c

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

1)(b) of the Act. Hence, she has taken the annual value for the purposes of section 23 of the Act as ₹ 3,16,800/- being the higher of the values arrived at based on clauses (a) or (b). Therefore, there is no error in the Order dated 14.02.2012 passed by the AO and she has given effect

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

1)(b) of the Act. Hence, she has taken the annual value for the purposes of section 23 of the Act as ₹ 3,16,800/- being the higher of the values arrived at based on clauses (a) or (b). Therefore, there is no error in the Order dated 14.02.2012 passed by the AO and she has given effect

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

1)(b) of the Act. Hence, she has taken the annual value for the purposes of section 23 of the Act as ₹ 3,16,800/- being the higher of the values arrived at based on clauses (a) or (b). Therefore, there is no error in the Order dated 14.02.2012 passed by the AO and she has given effect

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

1)(b) of the Act. Hence, she has taken the annual value for the purposes of section 23 of the Act as ₹ 3,16,800/- being the higher of the values arrived at based on clauses (a) or (b). Therefore, there is no error in the Order dated 14.02.2012 passed by the AO and she has given effect

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

1)(b) of the Act. Hence, she has taken the annual value for the purposes of section 23 of the Act as ₹ 3,16,800/- being the higher of the values arrived at based on clauses (a) or (b). Therefore, there is no error in the Order dated 14.02.2012 passed by the AO and she has given effect

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

1)(b) of the Act. Hence, she has taken the annual value for the purposes of section 23 of the Act as ₹ 3,16,800/- being the higher of the values arrived at based on clauses (a) or (b). Therefore, there is no error in the Order dated 14.02.2012 passed by the AO and she has given effect

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

property referred to in section 23(2) consists of more than one (A.Ys: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13) MorajFinanz Corporation house, then section 23(2) is to apply only in respect of one of such houses and section 23(4)(b) provides that the annual value of the house or houses, other than the house in respect of which

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

property referred to in section 23(2) consists of more than one (A.Ys: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13) MorajFinanz Corporation house, then section 23(2) is to apply only in respect of one of such houses and section 23(4)(b) provides that the annual value of the house or houses, other than the house in respect of which