MANIBEN P. CHHEDA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 14(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1706/Mum/2010 & I.T.A. No. 3724/Mum/13 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06 & 2006-07) Smt. Maniben P. Chheda Income Tax Officer बनाम/ 296, Old Post Office Lane, 14(3)(3) Vs. Mangaldas Market, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai - 400002 Mumbai "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacpc5479P

section 22 of the Act, therefore the income was not counted as income from house property and was taxed income from other sources and no deduction u/s.24(a) of the Act was allowed. The assessee had also received the interest to the tune of Rs.94,233

NAVIN SURYA,WORLI, MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 42(2)(1), MUMBAI, KAUTILYA BHAVAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2018-19

233, Kalpataru Horizon, S K Ahire Marg, Opposite Doordarshan Tower, Worli, Mumbai orli, Mumbai acquired from Dr. Nirmal Siremal Surya and from Dr. Nirmal Siremal Surya and Smt. Seema Siremal Surya Smt. Seema Siremal Surya, respectively. The Assessing Officer respectively. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 54F of the Act on the ground disallowed the claim

DCIT -CC-5(4), MUMBAI vs. RAGHULEELA ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

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

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

section 24(b) of the Act on the ground that preconstruction interest shall be allowed only to the extent of the cost of the property which is finally acquired/constructed. Your Appellant submits that on the facts of the case the preconstruction interest has been rightly claimed by the Appellant, being one-fifth of the interest paid on funds utilized

DCIT-CC-5(4), MUMBAI vs. RAGHULEELA ESTATES PVT LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

section 24(b) of the Act on the ground that preconstruction interest shall be allowed only to the extent of the cost of the property which is finally acquired/constructed. Your Appellant submits that on the facts of the case the preconstruction interest has been rightly claimed by the Appellant, being one-fifth of the interest paid on funds utilized

DCIT-CC-5(4), MUMBAI vs. RAGHULEELA ESTATES PVT LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

section 24(b) of the Act on the ground that preconstruction interest shall be allowed only to the extent of the cost of the property which is finally acquired/constructed. Your Appellant submits that on the facts of the case the preconstruction interest has been rightly claimed by the Appellant, being one-fifth of the interest paid on funds utilized

BHARAT TILES & MARBLE P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 2(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Bharat Tiles & Dy. Comm. Of Income Marble Pvt. Ltd., Tax, Circle 2(1), 4/27, Kamal Mansion, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Arthur Bunder Road, Mumbai Colaba, Mumbai-400 005 Pan: Aaacb1727A (Appellant) (Respondent)

233/- 3. Your appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or furnish fresh and detailed grounds of appeals.” 3. The assessee has also filed a petition for admission of additional grounds on 26.09.17 by raising the following additional grounds of appeal. The additional grounds raised by the assessee are reproduced as below: “On the facts and circumstances of the case

CHALET HOTELS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT,CC-4(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2505/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2507/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2510/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2511/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2513/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Acit, Central Circle-4(2) बिधम/ M/S. Chalet Hotels Ltd Room No. 1918, 19Th Floor, (As A M/S. Magna Vs. Air India Building, Nariman Distribution & Point, Mumbai-400021. Warehousing Pvt. Ltd.) Plot No. C-30 Raheja Tower, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No.Aaack0411E आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1754/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1755/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1756/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Genext Hardware & Parks बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-4(2) Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 1918, Air India Vs. Raheja Tower, Plot No. C- Building, Nariman Point, 30, Oppo. Sidbi, Bandra Mumbai-400021. Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaccg5567F

233/-. We direct the Assessing Officer accordingly.” 36. Applying the ratio decidendi laid down in the above decision (supra), since the assessee did not earn any exempt income during the relevant year, we do not see any infirmity in the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in having deleted the disallowance of Rs.16,04,12,564/- made under Section

ACIT -CC -4(2), MUMBAI vs. CHALET HOTELS LTD. (AS A SUCCESSOR TO M/S. MAGNA DISTRIBUTION PVT. LTD.), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2505/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2507/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2510/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2511/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2513/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Acit, Central Circle-4(2) बिधम/ M/S. Chalet Hotels Ltd Room No. 1918, 19Th Floor, (As A M/S. Magna Vs. Air India Building, Nariman Distribution & Point, Mumbai-400021. Warehousing Pvt. Ltd.) Plot No. C-30 Raheja Tower, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No.Aaack0411E आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1754/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1755/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1756/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Genext Hardware & Parks बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-4(2) Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 1918, Air India Vs. Raheja Tower, Plot No. C- Building, Nariman Point, 30, Oppo. Sidbi, Bandra Mumbai-400021. Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaccg5567F

233/-. We direct the Assessing Officer accordingly.” 36. Applying the ratio decidendi laid down in the above decision (supra), since the assessee did not earn any exempt income during the relevant year, we do not see any infirmity in the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in having deleted the disallowance of Rs.16,04,12,564/- made under Section

ACIT CENTRAL CIR -4(2), MUMBAI vs. CHALET HOTELS LTD. (AS A SUCESSOR TO MAGNA DISTRIBUTION & WAREHOUSING PVT. LTD) , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2505/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2507/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2510/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2511/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2513/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Acit, Central Circle-4(2) बिधम/ M/S. Chalet Hotels Ltd Room No. 1918, 19Th Floor, (As A M/S. Magna Vs. Air India Building, Nariman Distribution & Point, Mumbai-400021. Warehousing Pvt. Ltd.) Plot No. C-30 Raheja Tower, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No.Aaack0411E आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1754/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1755/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1756/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Genext Hardware & Parks बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-4(2) Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 1918, Air India Vs. Raheja Tower, Plot No. C- Building, Nariman Point, 30, Oppo. Sidbi, Bandra Mumbai-400021. Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaccg5567F

233/-. We direct the Assessing Officer accordingly.” 36. Applying the ratio decidendi laid down in the above decision (supra), since the assessee did not earn any exempt income during the relevant year, we do not see any infirmity in the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in having deleted the disallowance of Rs.16,04,12,564/- made under Section

ACIT- CC -4(2), MUMBAI vs. CHALET HOTELS LTD. (AS A SUCCESSOR TO M/S. MAGNA DISTRIBUTION & WAREHOUSING PVT. LTD.), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2505/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2507/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2510/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2511/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2513/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Acit, Central Circle-4(2) बिधम/ M/S. Chalet Hotels Ltd Room No. 1918, 19Th Floor, (As A M/S. Magna Vs. Air India Building, Nariman Distribution & Point, Mumbai-400021. Warehousing Pvt. Ltd.) Plot No. C-30 Raheja Tower, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No.Aaack0411E आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1754/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1755/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1756/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Genext Hardware & Parks बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-4(2) Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 1918, Air India Vs. Raheja Tower, Plot No. C- Building, Nariman Point, 30, Oppo. Sidbi, Bandra Mumbai-400021. Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaccg5567F

233/-. We direct the Assessing Officer accordingly.” 36. Applying the ratio decidendi laid down in the above decision (supra), since the assessee did not earn any exempt income during the relevant year, we do not see any infirmity in the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in having deleted the disallowance of Rs.16,04,12,564/- made under Section

ACIT- CC -4(2), MUMBAI vs. CHALET HOTELS LTD. (AS A SUCCESSOR TO M/S. MAGNA DISTRIBUTION & WAREHOUSING PVT. LTD.), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2505/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2507/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2510/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2511/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2513/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Acit, Central Circle-4(2) बिधम/ M/S. Chalet Hotels Ltd Room No. 1918, 19Th Floor, (As A M/S. Magna Vs. Air India Building, Nariman Distribution & Point, Mumbai-400021. Warehousing Pvt. Ltd.) Plot No. C-30 Raheja Tower, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No.Aaack0411E आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1754/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1755/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1756/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Genext Hardware & Parks बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-4(2) Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 1918, Air India Vs. Raheja Tower, Plot No. C- Building, Nariman Point, 30, Oppo. Sidbi, Bandra Mumbai-400021. Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaccg5567F

233/-. We direct the Assessing Officer accordingly.” 36. Applying the ratio decidendi laid down in the above decision (supra), since the assessee did not earn any exempt income during the relevant year, we do not see any infirmity in the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in having deleted the disallowance of Rs.16,04,12,564/- made under Section

ACIT -CC- 4(2), MUMBAI vs. CHALET HOTELS LTD. (AS A SUCCESSOR TO M/S.MAGNA DISTRIBUTION & WAREHOUSING PVT. LTD.), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2505/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2507/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2510/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2511/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2513/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Acit, Central Circle-4(2) बिधम/ M/S. Chalet Hotels Ltd Room No. 1918, 19Th Floor, (As A M/S. Magna Vs. Air India Building, Nariman Distribution & Point, Mumbai-400021. Warehousing Pvt. Ltd.) Plot No. C-30 Raheja Tower, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No.Aaack0411E आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1754/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1755/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1756/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Genext Hardware & Parks बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-4(2) Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 1918, Air India Vs. Raheja Tower, Plot No. C- Building, Nariman Point, 30, Oppo. Sidbi, Bandra Mumbai-400021. Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaccg5567F

233/-. We direct the Assessing Officer accordingly.” 36. Applying the ratio decidendi laid down in the above decision (supra), since the assessee did not earn any exempt income during the relevant year, we do not see any infirmity in the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in having deleted the disallowance of Rs.16,04,12,564/- made under Section

CHALET HOTELS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2505/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2507/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2510/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2511/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2513/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Acit, Central Circle-4(2) बिधम/ M/S. Chalet Hotels Ltd Room No. 1918, 19Th Floor, (As A M/S. Magna Vs. Air India Building, Nariman Distribution & Point, Mumbai-400021. Warehousing Pvt. Ltd.) Plot No. C-30 Raheja Tower, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No.Aaack0411E आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1754/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1755/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1756/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Genext Hardware & Parks बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-4(2) Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 1918, Air India Vs. Raheja Tower, Plot No. C- Building, Nariman Point, 30, Oppo. Sidbi, Bandra Mumbai-400021. Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaccg5567F

233/-. We direct the Assessing Officer accordingly.” 36. Applying the ratio decidendi laid down in the above decision (supra), since the assessee did not earn any exempt income during the relevant year, we do not see any infirmity in the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in having deleted the disallowance of Rs.16,04,12,564/- made under Section

RAVI K SHETH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Bleshri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleshri Ravi K. Sheth V. Dcit – 5(3) C/O Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Room No. 573 2Nd Floor, Esplande House Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg Mumbai – 400020 Fort, Mumbai – 400001 Pan: Aaips7341E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Percy Paridiwala Department By : Shri Bharat Andhle

section 23(1)(b) the annual value was equal to the Municipal valuation of the property. It is submitted that Board itself has given how the said term “the sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to let from year to year” is to be interpreted. Therefore, it is submitted that the entire approach of the Assessing Officer

PALM GROVE BEACH HOTELS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

Bench: Us With Delay Of 382 Days & 233 Days Respectively.

233 days respectively. 3. We find from the affidavit filed by the assessee for the condonation of delay that assessee was not having any clarity on the issue whether the annual letting value of unsold flats in case of builders and the construction companies would be taxable under the head „Income from House Property‟ or not in view

DCIT 8(2), MUMBAI vs. M S LUVISH INFOTECH PROJECTS P.LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

233/- by stating that foreclosure penalty is not covered in the definition of interest and cannot be allowed under the head income from house property. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax erred in disallowing interest on additional loan of Rs.5 Cr. Obtained from HDFC Bank amounting to Rs.10

LUVISH INFOTECH PROJECTS (P) LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 16(2), HYDERABAD

Appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

233/- by stating that foreclosure penalty is not covered in the definition of interest and cannot be allowed under the head income from house property. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax erred in disallowing interest on additional loan of Rs.5 Cr. Obtained from HDFC Bank amounting to Rs.10

PALM GROVE BEACH HOTELS PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am आमकय अऩीर सिं./ Ita No. 4296/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वषा / Assessment Year 2016-17) Palm Grove Beach Hotels Pvt. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income Tax, Centre 2Nd Construction House-B, Circle-4(1), फनाभ/ Floor, 623, Linking Road, Mumbai-400 021 Khar(West), Vs. Mumbai-400 052 (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा सिं./Pan No. Aaacp2735J अऩीराथी की ओय से/ Appellant By : None प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Respondent By : Ms. Shreekala Pardeshai, Dr सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 17.06.2021 घोषणा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 22.06.2021

233/- on account of annual letting value of unsold flats which was lying in closing stock under the head income from house property. 3. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. We have heard the learned DR and perused the materials available on record. We find that assessee had filed detailed written submission dated 19.02.2021 which is already placed

ASST CIT CEN CIR 29, MUMBAI vs. SHAH RUKH KHAN, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri N.K.Pradhan, Am Dy. Commissoner Of Income-Tax, Shri Shah Rukh Khan Central Circle-4(2), Mumbai 44-Mannat, B.J. Road, Band बिधम/ (Erstwhile Assistant Commissioner Of Income Stand, Bandra (West), Tax, Central Circle-29, Mumbai) Mumbai-400 050. Vs. R. No. 1918, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aahpk3293L (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

section of the Act would not affect the provisions of the tax treaties, unless the same are ratified by both the signatories of the treaty. It was averred by the ld. A.R that the Tribunal in the aforementioned case, on the basis of its aforesaid observations had concluded that the house property income of the assessee before them was liable