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

property. The case of the assessee is further fortified by the decision in Mustansir I Tehsildar vs Income Tax Officer (2018) 168 ITD 523(Mum.). The relevant portion from this decision is reproduced hereunder:- “5. We heard the parties on this issue and perused the record. We have earlier noticed that the assessee has booked a flat, which was under

SAMEER KISHORE KOTICHA,MUMBAI vs. DY.COMM OF INCOME TAX 6(1) (2) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Gagan Goyal

234 B & C and interest & 244A. 4.2 Appellant's submissions are duly considered. Appellant submitted bank loan statement as proof of taking housing loan, on which interest is being paid. Appellant claims it is "deemed let-out property". As per income tax law, when an assessee has more than one house property, he can live in one property

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

GOODVALUE POLYPLAST LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 16(3)(1), MUMBAI

section 23(1)(a) of the Act.His finding is based on inquiries made.He had arrived at the conclusion that the actual rent received was less than the "fair/market rent" because the assessee had received abnormally high interest free security deposit. 2.5In our opinion the ALV fixed by the municipal authorities cannot be the sole criteria for determining the fair

PROCTER & GAMBLE HOME PRODUCTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, ground No. 3 of the

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Arun Khodpia(Physical Hearing) Procter & Gamble Home Products Ltd. Addl Cit Rg 8(2) P & G Plaza Cardinal Gracias Rd. Mumbai-400020. Chakala, Andheri (E)- 40009 Vs [Pan:Aaacp4072C] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Procter & Gamble Home Products Addl Cit 8(2) Private Limited, Vs Mumbai-400020. P & G Plaza Cardinal Gracias Rd. Chakala, Andheri (E)- 40009 [Pan:Aaacp4072C] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

House Property", in such case, only the expenditure related to building ought to be considered for disallowance and not the shared expenses which were not related to building at all. ii. The Appellant prays that for the purpose of disallowance; the AO be directed to consider only building related expenses. Ground VI: i. On the facts and circumstances

PROCTER & GAMBLE HOME PRODUCTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, ground No. 3 of the

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Arun Khodpia(Physical Hearing) Procter & Gamble Home Products Ltd. Addl Cit Rg 8(2) P & G Plaza Cardinal Gracias Rd. Mumbai-400020. Chakala, Andheri (E)- 40009 Vs [Pan:Aaacp4072C] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Procter & Gamble Home Products Addl Cit 8(2) Private Limited, Vs Mumbai-400020. P & G Plaza Cardinal Gracias Rd. Chakala, Andheri (E)- 40009 [Pan:Aaacp4072C] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

House Property", in such case, only the expenditure related to building ought to be considered for disallowance and not the shared expenses which were not related to building at all. ii. The Appellant prays that for the purpose of disallowance; the AO be directed to consider only building related expenses. Ground VI: i. On the facts and circumstances

UNIQUE ESTATES DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleunique Estates Dcit, Cc-4(1) बनाम/ Room No. 1906, 19Th Floor, Development Co. Ltd., Vs. Construction House-B, 2Nd Air India Bldg. Nariman Floor, 623, Linking Road, Point, Mumbai – Khar (West), 400 021. Mumbai-400 052. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacu0699N .. (""यथ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant)

House Property". 1(b). On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law, learned CIT(A) erred in not following jurisdictional ITAT decisions which squarely apply to the facts of the appellant's case, which are as under:- Sr. No. Description (i) Makewaves Sea Resort Pvt. Ltd. v/s DCIT, Central Circle -4(1), Mumbai

DCIT-CC-4(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RAHEJA UNIVERSAL PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, cross objection filed by the Assessee is allowed,\nwhereas appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed being infructuous

house property income\non such flats and shops and therefore the flats should be taxed u/s 23(4)\nof the Act.\n11.3 We further observe that the balance sheet etc. and declaring of\nunsold inventories in the form of flats and shops were before the erstwhile\nAO in the original assessment proceedings. This goes to show that there\nwas

DCIT CIR 3(1), MUMBAI vs. VEMBU VAIDYANATHAN, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit, Shri Vembu Vaidyanathan, Circle-3(1), B-1602, Beaumonde बनाम/ Room No.607, 6Th Floor, Apartments, Appa Saheb Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400028 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaipv5796J Shri B. Yadagiri-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Vijay C. Kothari

housing loan is deductible while computing gains as per section 48 of the Act”. The stand of the Assessing Officer as well as of the ld. DR is that there is no provision u/s 48 of the Act for deduction of interest paid during the course of acquisition of asset. After considering the totality of facts

DCIT 2 2 1, MUMBAI vs. M S LUVISH INFOTECH PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue bearing ITA

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjeedcit (2)(2)(1), Mumbai Vs M/S Luvish Infotech Projects 5Th Room No.545, Floor, Private Limited, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Cts 102/2, Sani Armaa, Raut Lane, Mumbai-400 020 Juhu, Vile Parle West, Mumbai-400 049 Pan : Aadcm4966H Appellant Respondent

house property, the assessing officer has denied the claim of set off of unabsorbed depreciation for the current assessment year. The above ground of appeal is consequential in nature and needs no separate submission. It is submitted that the Hon’ble Jurisdictional Tribunal has already decided the above matter in favour of the Appellant in the previous assessment years

SHRI VIVEK TALWAR,MUMBAI vs. ACIT- CC - 46 , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanshri Vivek Talwar Acit, Central Cricle-46, Room No. 659, 6Th Floor, 17-B, Ill Palazzo, Ridge Road, Malabar Hill, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Mumbai-400006. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan: Aaapt3994Q Appellant Respondent Shri Vivek Talwar Acit, Central Cricle-46, Room No. 659, 6Th Floor, 17-B, Ill Palazzo, Ridge Road, Malabar Hill, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Mumbai-400006. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan: Aaapt3994Q Appellant Respondent

section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c), however, he is not pressing the same. 5. The ld. AR of the assessee further submits that assessee is 50% owner of a unit/property situated at Court Chamber, New Marine Lines, which was rented out since 1967, the rent was fixed as per agreed term at the time of letting. The assessee received

DCIT 4 (3)(1), MUMBAI vs. MOHIT DEEPAK KAMBOJ, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4285/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6384/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit-4(3)(1) बिधम/ Shri Mohit Deepak Room No. 649, 6Th Floor, Kamboj Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- A-15, Venus Co-Op. 400020. Society, R. G. Thandani Marg, Mumbai-400018. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.801/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit, Cir-6(3)(2) बिधम/ Shri Mohit Deepak R. No. 522, 5Th Floor, Kamboj Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. A-15, Venus Co-Op. Road, Mumbai-400020. Society, R. G. Thandani Marg, Mumbai-400018 स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Alckp2213G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Satyaprakash Singh Revenue By: Shri P. R. Mane सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

house property u/s 23(1). 10. In view of the above discussion, the AO is directed to re-compute the addition made towards the Income from deemed let out property by considering the Worli property as the deemed let out property instead of the Juhu property considered in the assessment order. This ground of appeal is therefore partly allowed.” (emphasis

ACIT CIR-6(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. SHRI MOHIT DEEPAK KAMBOJ, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4285/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6384/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit-4(3)(1) बिधम/ Shri Mohit Deepak Room No. 649, 6Th Floor, Kamboj Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- A-15, Venus Co-Op. 400020. Society, R. G. Thandani Marg, Mumbai-400018. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.801/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit, Cir-6(3)(2) बिधम/ Shri Mohit Deepak R. No. 522, 5Th Floor, Kamboj Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. A-15, Venus Co-Op. Road, Mumbai-400020. Society, R. G. Thandani Marg, Mumbai-400018 स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Alckp2213G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Satyaprakash Singh Revenue By: Shri P. R. Mane सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

house property u/s 23(1). 10. In view of the above discussion, the AO is directed to re-compute the addition made towards the Income from deemed let out property by considering the Worli property as the deemed let out property instead of the Juhu property considered in the assessment order. This ground of appeal is therefore partly allowed.” (emphasis

DCIT 4 (3)(1), MUMBAI vs. SHRI MOHIT KEEPAK KAMBOJ, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4285/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6384/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit-4(3)(1) बिधम/ Shri Mohit Deepak Room No. 649, 6Th Floor, Kamboj Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- A-15, Venus Co-Op. 400020. Society, R. G. Thandani Marg, Mumbai-400018. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.801/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit, Cir-6(3)(2) बिधम/ Shri Mohit Deepak R. No. 522, 5Th Floor, Kamboj Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. A-15, Venus Co-Op. Road, Mumbai-400020. Society, R. G. Thandani Marg, Mumbai-400018 स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Alcpk2213Q (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Satyaprakash Singh Revenue By: Shri P. R. Mane सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

house property u/s 23(1). 10. In view of the above discussion, the AO is directed to re-compute the addition made towards the Income from deemed let out property by considering the Worli property as the deemed let out property instead of the Juhu property considered in the assessment order. This ground of appeal is therefore partly allowed.” (emphasis

ABDUL NAYAB SHAIKH,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 23(1)(1), MATURMANDIR, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

house and\nthe entire amount was duly invested in the new property. The assessee and his\nwife both are the joint owners of the original property. So, both were also the\nowners of the new properties, i.e. flat No.508A and 509. In any case, the addition\nshould be made in proper hands. In this connection, the Ld.AR relied

KHANDELWAL ESTATE (P) LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 10(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed and the appeal of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.5215 & 5521/M/2010, Ita No.5492/M/2011 & "नधा"रण वष" M/S. Khandelwal Estates Pvt. Acit 10(1), Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Sani Arma, Mumbai -400 020 बनाम/Vs. Raut Lane, बनाम बनाम बनाम Near Isckon Temple, Juhu, Vile Parle (West), Mumbai – 400 049 Pan: Aaack2613E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

234/-, parking charges of Rs.20,69,780/-, tea sale vendor Rs.20,974/- and promotional income of Rs.5,21,435/- as 'Income from Business' as against Income from Other Sources without appreciating that assessee was not engaged in any business activity but had simply let out the House Property. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

KHANDELWAL ESTATE P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 10(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed and the appeal of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.5215 & 5521/M/2010, Ita No.5492/M/2011 & "नधा"रण वष" M/S. Khandelwal Estates Pvt. Acit 10(1), Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Sani Arma, Mumbai -400 020 बनाम/Vs. Raut Lane, बनाम बनाम बनाम Near Isckon Temple, Juhu, Vile Parle (West), Mumbai – 400 049 Pan: Aaack2613E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

234/-, parking charges of Rs.20,69,780/-, tea sale vendor Rs.20,974/- and promotional income of Rs.5,21,435/- as 'Income from Business' as against Income from Other Sources without appreciating that assessee was not engaged in any business activity but had simply let out the House Property. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case