JAY PROPERTIES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 6(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh() & Shri D.Karunakara. Rao () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Jay Properties P. Ltd Vs. The Acit, Cir 6(1) 135 Continental Building Aayakar Bhavan Dr. A.B. Rd. Worli Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400018 Pan No. Aaacj1369C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri. B.S. Sharma Shri. Dalapat Shah Respondent By : Shri Sujit Bangar

house property at the first instance while filing return of income in the computation of income. The assessee also claimed deduction under section 24A

M/S. EMERALD REALTORS P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CC-5(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2016-17

house property to the tune of Rs.66,572/- after allowing standard deduction @ 30% under section 24A of the Act. The AO thereby

HIGHTECH REALTIES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(2)(4), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2728/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Hightech Realties Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Ito Ward 12(2)(4) 1St Floor, Ruchi House, Plot Mumbai. Vs. No. 169, Aarey Colony, Goregaon (W), Mumbai- 400065. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacch0026J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Bhupendra Shah (Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 24.10.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31.10.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 08.03.2012 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 20, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2013- 14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “[A] Grounds Of Appeal; 1. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned A.O, Erred In Adding Rs 63,95,231. Under The Head “Income From House Property" & The Commissioner Of Income Tax(A) Erred In Confirming Addition Of Rs.12.60.000/-

24A of the Act @ 30% i.e. to the tune of Rs.27,40,813/-, the income of the house property was assessed to the tune of Rs.63,95,231/- and total income of the assessee was assessed to the tune of Rs.64,61,230/-. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) who confirmed the addition, therefore

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. JAY PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Dy. Cit, Circle-6(1)(2) Jay Properties Private Limited 18Th Floor, A-Wing, Marathon Mumbai Vs. Futurex, N.M. Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 013

24A of the Act. 4. The assessee was in appeal before the ld. CIT(A), challenging the assessment order. 5. The ld. CIT(A) held that in assessee’s case for A.Ys. 2009-10 and 2014-15, the Assessing Officer (A.O. for short) has accepted the contention of the assessee that the rental income was to be assessed as ‘income

BIPIN SAGAR,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT WD 21(1), MUMBAI

In the result this appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singh

House Property' as per original computation of total income filed along with return of income. 1.2 The Appellant prays that the penalty levied by the AO and confirmed by the Id. CIT(A) be deleted. 2. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or modify all or any the above grounds at the time of hearing

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal

Housing and Area Development Act, 1976, or (b) appoint any Development Authority declared under sub-section (3A) of section 113, or (c) appoint the Bombay Metropolitan Region Development Authority establish under the Bombay Metropolitan Region Development Authority Act, 1974, to be the Special Planning Authority for developing the notified area." 5.2 It is seen from the above provisions that while

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for Assessment Year 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal

Housing and Area Development Act, 1976, or (b) appoint any Development Authority declared under sub-section (3A) of section 113, or (c) appoint the Bombay Metropolitan Region Development Authority establish under the Bombay Metropolitan Region Development Authority Act, 1974, to be the Special Planning Authority for developing the notified area." 5.2 It is seen from the above provisions that while

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for Assessment Year 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal

Housing and Area Development Act, 1976, or (b) appoint any Development Authority declared under sub-section (3A) of section 113, or (c) appoint the Bombay Metropolitan Region Development Authority establish under the Bombay Metropolitan Region Development Authority Act, 1974, to be the Special Planning Authority for developing the notified area." 5.2 It is seen from the above provisions that while

FULLERTON FINANCIAL HOLDINGS PTE. LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX - (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE 2(3)(1) - MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, nor does the provision invite a disallowance analysis under domestic law. The term "operational expenditure" as used in Article 24A(3) of the DTAA is broad, and therefore, all expenses for the establishment and running of the company would be included. 49. It is respectfully submitted that the AO/DRP cannot superimpose their