DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4) , MUMBAI vs. RUSTOMJEE EVERSHINE JOINT VENTURE , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue for AY 2013-14 &

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1349/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit, Central Circle-2(4) बिधम/ Rustomjee Evershine Room No. 802, 8Th Floor, Joint Venture Vs. Prathishtha Bhavan, M. K. Global City, Narangi Road, Churchgate, Mumbai- Bypass Road, Close To 400020. Viva College, Virar (W), Virar-401303. Cross Objection No. 27/Mum/2023 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.1349/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Rustomjee Evershine Joint बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-2(4) Room No. 802, 8Th Floor, Venture Vs. Global City, Narangi Prathishtha Bhavan, M. K. Bypass Road, Close To Viva Road, Churchgate, College, Virar (W), Virar- Mumbai-400020. 401303. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.1824 & 1825/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2014-15) Dcit, Central Circle-2(4) बिधम/ Rustomjee Evershine Room No. 802, 8Th Floor, Joint Venture Vs. Prathishtha Bhavan, M. K. Global City, Narangi Road, Churchgate, Mumbai- Bypass Road, Close To 400020. Viva College, Virar (W), Virar-401303. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaar7687M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Naresh Kumar Revenue By: Shri P. D. Chougule (Addl. Cit) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 25/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/07/2023

245 5,29,71,264 1,40,18,981 Amount of 1,40,18,981 interest to be disallowed C.O. 27/Mum/2023 A.Ys. 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2016-17 Rustomjee Evershine Joint Venture 7.6 Therefore, following the decision of my Ld. Predecessor as well as of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-18 and 36, Mumbai, in the case

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(4), MUMBAI vs. RUSTOMJI EVERSHINE JOINT VENTURE, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue for AY 2013-14 &

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1349/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit, Central Circle-2(4) बिधम/ Rustomjee Evershine Room No. 802, 8Th Floor, Joint Venture Vs. Prathishtha Bhavan, M. K. Global City, Narangi Road, Churchgate, Mumbai- Bypass Road, Close To 400020. Viva College, Virar (W), Virar-401303. Cross Objection No. 27/Mum/2023 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.1349/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Rustomjee Evershine Joint बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-2(4) Room No. 802, 8Th Floor, Venture Vs. Global City, Narangi Prathishtha Bhavan, M. K. Bypass Road, Close To Viva Road, Churchgate, College, Virar (W), Virar- Mumbai-400020. 401303. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.1824 & 1825/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2014-15) Dcit, Central Circle-2(4) बिधम/ Rustomjee Evershine Room No. 802, 8Th Floor, Joint Venture Vs. Prathishtha Bhavan, M. K. Global City, Narangi Road, Churchgate, Mumbai- Bypass Road, Close To 400020. Viva College, Virar (W), Virar-401303. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaar7687M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Naresh Kumar Revenue By: Shri P. D. Chougule (Addl. Cit) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 25/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/07/2023

245 5,29,71,264 1,40,18,981 Amount of 1,40,18,981 interest to be disallowed C.O. 27/Mum/2023 A.Ys. 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2016-17 Rustomjee Evershine Joint Venture 7.6 Therefore, following the decision of my Ld. Predecessor as well as of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-18 and 36, Mumbai, in the case

PRIYA MOHAN GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. CY CIT-CC-5(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

Section 153A of The Income Tax Act 1961 on 26/12/2018. 017. On Appeal before the learned CIT – A – 53, Mumbai, he passed an order dated 12/3/2021 dismissing the appeal of the assessee as under :- i. Assessee challenged by ground number 1, 4 and 8 regarding the validity of assessment u/s 153A of the act. Assessee challenged that no incriminating material

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

Section 153A of The Income Tax Act 1961 on 26/12/2018. 017. On Appeal before the learned CIT – A – 53, Mumbai, he passed an order dated 12/3/2021 dismissing the appeal of the assessee as under :- i. Assessee challenged by ground number 1, 4 and 8 regarding the validity of assessment u/s 153A of the act. Assessee challenged that no incriminating material

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

Section 153A of The Income Tax Act 1961 on 26/12/2018. 017. On Appeal before the learned CIT – A – 53, Mumbai, he passed an order dated 12/3/2021 dismissing the appeal of the assessee as under :- i. Assessee challenged by ground number 1, 4 and 8 regarding the validity of assessment u/s 153A of the act. Assessee challenged that no incriminating material

PRIYA MOHAN GURNANAI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

Section 153A of The Income Tax Act 1961 on 26/12/2018. 017. On Appeal before the learned CIT – A – 53, Mumbai, he passed an order dated 12/3/2021 dismissing the appeal of the assessee as under :- i. Assessee challenged by ground number 1, 4 and 8 regarding the validity of assessment u/s 153A of the act. Assessee challenged that no incriminating material

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

Section 153A of The Income Tax Act 1961 on 26/12/2018. 017. On Appeal before the learned CIT – A – 53, Mumbai, he passed an order dated 12/3/2021 dismissing the appeal of the assessee as under :- i. Assessee challenged by ground number 1, 4 and 8 regarding the validity of assessment u/s 153A of the act. Assessee challenged that no incriminating material

PRIYA MOHAN GURNANAI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

Section 153A of The Income Tax Act 1961 on 26/12/2018. 017. On Appeal before the learned CIT – A – 53, Mumbai, he passed an order dated 12/3/2021 dismissing the appeal of the assessee as under :- i. Assessee challenged by ground number 1, 4 and 8 regarding the validity of assessment u/s 153A of the act. Assessee challenged that no incriminating material

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

section 54(1) had to be given a common meaning, that is, buying for a price or equivalent of a price on by payment in kind or buying for a price or equivalent of a price on by payment in kind or buying for a price or equivalent of a price on by payment in kind or adjustment towards debt

TODI INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 8(3)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

section. Conversely, if the dominant\nintention of the assessee is to exploit a commercial asset, the\nincome received should be treated as income from business. The\nassessee has not shown that its dominant intention was to\nexploit the asset commercially. He further referred to the case of\nM/s Shambhu Investment (P) Ltd.(249 ITR 47), and held that\nalthough

MANJU RAKESH JAIN,MUMBAI vs. PCIT, MUMBAI-20, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Manju Rakesh Jain, Pcit, Mumbai-20 704-A, Highland Park, Lokhanwala 418, 4Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Complex, Andheri West, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400058. Mumbai-400012. Pan No. Aaepj 9613 N Appellant Respondent

house property income if the same is allowable under the relevant provisions of the if the same is allowable under the relevant provisions of the if the same is allowable under the relevant provisions of the Act. In this case Act. In this case, interest income has been received from , interest income has been received from Sanyam Sanyam Sanyam Realtors

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TATA SONS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

house property'. We find that the Id. AR referred to the decision rendered in group companies case of the assessee by this Tribunal in the case of Ewart Investments Ltd., vs. DCIT in ITA No.3623/Mum/2017 dated 28/02/2019 for A.Y.2012-13 wherein this issue was restored to the file of the Id. AO. The Id. AR fairly prayed for similar direction

TATA SONS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT,CIR 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

house property'. We find that the Id. AR referred to the decision rendered in group companies case of the assessee by this Tribunal in the case of Ewart Investments Ltd., vs. DCIT in ITA No.3623/Mum/2017 dated 28/02/2019 for A.Y.2012-13 wherein this issue was restored to the file of the Id. AO. The Id. AR fairly prayed for similar direction

PEGASUS PROPERTIES P. LTD.,PUNE vs. DY CIT, CC-2(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

245. On the basis of search and survey action on ABIL Group on 21st July 2017, the proceedings under section 153 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') were initiated by the DCIT, Central Circle-2(3), Mumbai in case of the Assessee u/s. 153A of the Act. Accordingly, assessment proceedings for AY 2015-16 were completed by passing

DCIT- 8(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. PIRAMAL ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

House Property and thus, the Assessee had rightly offered it to tax under the head business income. B. Hon'ble Bombay High Court was aware that the Assessee was into two separate lines of business 1. It is pertinent to note that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has approved the scheme of arrangement between Piramal Holdings Limited

JT. CIT (OSD) - 2 (3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TATA SONS PRIVATE LTD., MUMBAI

house property'. We find that the Id. AR referred\nto the decision rendered in group companies case of the assessee by this\nTribunal in the case of Ewart Investments Ltd., vs. DCIT in ITA\nNo.3623/Mum/2017 dated 28/02/2019 for A.Y.2012-13 wherein this issue\nwas restored to the file of the Id. AO. The Id. AR fairly prayed for similar\ndirection

TATA SONS PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)-58, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.1093/मुं/2019(िन.व. 2012-13) Tata Sons Private Limited, Bombay House, 24, Homi Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai 400 001. ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaact-4060-A बनाम Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-58, Jcit, Room No.552, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, ....."ितवादी/Respondent Mumbai – 400 020 आअसं.1349/मुं/2019 (िन.व. 2012-13) Jt.Cit (Osd)-2(3)(1), Mumbai Room No.552, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Mumbai – 400 020 बनाम Vs. Tata Sons Private Limited, Bombay House, 24, Homi Mody Stree, Fort, Mumbai 400 001. ....."ितवादी/Respondent Pan: Aaact-4060-A अपीलाथ""ारा/Appellant By : Ms. Arati Vissanji & Ms. Aastha Shah, Advocates. "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : S/Shri Manoj Kumar, Cit-Dr & Ujjwal Kumar Chavhan, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 22/12/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/03/2024

house property'. We find that the Id. AR referred to the decision rendered in group companies case of the assessee by this Tribunal in the case of Ewart Investments Ltd., vs. DCIT in ITA No.3623/Mum/2017 dated 28/02/2019 for A.Y.2012-13 wherein this issue was restored to the file of the Id. AO. The Id. AR fairly prayed for similar direction

ANANT R GAWANDE,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and AO is directed to give consequential relief

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

house. It was held that since the entire property was not an exclusive residential property and 50% of the ownership was with reference to the clinic on the ground floor, the harshness of the proviso to Section 54 F cannot be applied. However in the case of our assessee, India bulls property is an exclusive residential property. Moreover, revenue

DCIT 14(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. BLUE BERRY TRADING CO P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

house property", "Capital gains" and "Income from other sources". Now, ordinarily income which arises from one source which falls under the head of profits and gains of business or profession can be set off against the loss which arises from another source under the same head. Sub-Section (1) of Section 73 however sets up a bar to the setting