THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

house property income and were accordingly disallowed under each of the above heads except the disallowance under the head repairs and maintenance where in the A.O allocated only 10% of the expenses as relatable to business on the ground that the office space is only 10%of the total area and accordingly 90% of the expenses is disallowed being attributable

THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

house property income and were accordingly disallowed under each of the above heads except the disallowance under the head repairs and maintenance where in the A.O allocated only 10% of the expenses as relatable to business on the ground that the office space is only 10%of the total area and accordingly 90% of the expenses is disallowed being attributable

THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

house property income and were accordingly disallowed under each of the above heads except the disallowance under the head repairs and maintenance where in the A.O allocated only 10% of the expenses as relatable to business on the ground that the office space is only 10%of the total area and accordingly 90% of the expenses is disallowed being attributable

THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

house property income and were accordingly disallowed under each of the above heads except the disallowance under the head repairs and maintenance where in the A.O allocated only 10% of the expenses as relatable to business on the ground that the office space is only 10%of the total area and accordingly 90% of the expenses is disallowed being attributable

THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

house property income and were accordingly disallowed under each of the above heads except the disallowance under the head repairs and maintenance where in the A.O allocated only 10% of the expenses as relatable to business on the ground that the office space is only 10%of the total area and accordingly 90% of the expenses is disallowed being attributable

ASST CIT CC 8(4), MUMBAI vs. PHOENIX MILLS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

house property income and were accordingly disallowed under each of the above heads except the disallowance under the head repairs and maintenance where in the A.O allocated only 10% of the expenses as relatable to business on the ground that the office space is only 10%of the total area and accordingly 90% of the expenses is disallowed being attributable

ASST CIT CC 8(4), MUMBAI vs. PHOENIX MILLS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

house property income and were accordingly disallowed under each of the above heads except the disallowance under the head repairs and maintenance where in the A.O allocated only 10% of the expenses as relatable to business on the ground that the office space is only 10%of the total area and accordingly 90% of the expenses is disallowed being attributable

DCIT CC 4(2), MUMBAI vs. ROCKFORT ESTATE DEVELOPERS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the Cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Cc-4(2) Vs M/S Rockfort Estate Room No. 1918, 19Th Developers Pvt Ltd Floor, Air India Bldg, 1,Leela Baug, Andheri – Nariman Point, Kurla, Mumbai – 400021. Mumbai – 400051. Pan/Gir No. : Aabcr7896K Appellant .. Respondent Co No. 72/Mum/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 4091/Mum/2019 A.Y 2014-15) M/S Rockfort Estate Vs Dcit, Cc-4(2) Developers Pvt Ltd Room No. 1918, 19Th 1, Leela Baug,Andheri Floor, Air India Bldg, – Kurla, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400051. Mumbai – 400021. Pan/Gir No. : Aabcr7896K Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Mr.Rahul Hakani.Ar Revenue By : Mr.S.N. Kabra.Dr Date Of Hearing 28.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25.04.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-52

250 of the Act and the assessee has filed the cross objections. 2. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR of the assessee submitted that there is a delay in filing the cross objections (C.O.) before the Hon’ble Tribunal and explained that due to Covid-19 pandemic, the filling was delayed and relied on the decision

NAHALCHAND LALOOCHAND P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

House, 14 बनाम/ Mama Parmanand Road Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. Mumbai-400 004. New Marine Lines Mumbai-400 020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AAACN-4472-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee by : Shri Devendra Jain - Ld. AR Revenue by : Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik – Ld. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 25/11/2019 Date of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 02/01/2020 Date of Pronouncement

ISLAND STAR MALL DEVELOPES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI SUBURBAN vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 6(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

250 of the Act. 2. Since the issues involved in these appeals are common, identical and interlinked, hence they are clubbed, heard and a consolidated order is passed. For the sake of convenience, we shall take up ITA No. 2246/Mum/2023, A.Y 2012-13 as lead case and the facts narrated. The Assessee has raised the fallowing grounds of appeal

ISLAND STAR MALL DEVELOPES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 6(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

250 of the Act. 2. Since the issues involved in these appeals are common, identical and interlinked, hence they are clubbed, heard and a consolidated order is passed. For the sake of convenience, we shall take up ITA No. 2246/Mum/2023, A.Y 2012-13 as lead case and the facts narrated. The Assessee has raised the fallowing grounds of appeal

ISLAND STAR MALL DEVELOPES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 6(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

250 of the Act. 2. Since the issues involved in these appeals are common, identical and interlinked, hence they are clubbed, heard and a consolidated order is passed. For the sake of convenience, we shall take up ITA No. 2246/Mum/2023, A.Y 2012-13 as lead case and the facts narrated. The Assessee has raised the fallowing grounds of appeal

ISLAND STAR MALL DEVELOPES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI SUBURBAN vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 6(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

250 of the Act. 2. Since the issues involved in these appeals are common, identical and interlinked, hence they are clubbed, heard and a consolidated order is passed. For the sake of convenience, we shall take up ITA No. 2246/Mum/2023, A.Y 2012-13 as lead case and the facts narrated. The Assessee has raised the fallowing grounds of appeal

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 6(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S ISLAND STAR MALL DEVELOPERS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

250 of the Act. 2. Since the issues involved in these appeals are common, identical and interlinked, hence they are clubbed, heard and a consolidated order is passed. For the sake of convenience, we shall take up ITA No. 2246/Mum/2023, A.Y 2012-13 as lead case and the facts narrated. The Assessee has raised the fallowing grounds of appeal

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 6(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S ISLAND STAR MALL DEVELOPERS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

250 of the Act. 2. Since the issues involved in these appeals are common, identical and interlinked, hence they are clubbed, heard and a consolidated order is passed. For the sake of convenience, we shall take up ITA No. 2246/Mum/2023, A.Y 2012-13 as lead case and the facts narrated. The Assessee has raised the fallowing grounds of appeal

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 6(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S ISLAND STAR MALL DEVELOPERS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

250 of the Act. 2. Since the issues involved in these appeals are common, identical and interlinked, hence they are clubbed, heard and a consolidated order is passed. For the sake of convenience, we shall take up ITA No. 2246/Mum/2023, A.Y 2012-13 as lead case and the facts narrated. The Assessee has raised the fallowing grounds of appeal

SANE & DOSHI ENTERPARISES,MUMBAI vs. JT CIT 17(3), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

section 24(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. If the income is income from house property and that is a deduction which could be granted from the same we do not think that the Revenue should be permitted to raise this ground. Even otherwise, the finding being consistent with the factual position which is not disputed, then

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

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

house property made in the order were in respect of the items and issues that were settled in the original assessment and therefore were not the subject matter of the special assessment u/s 153A c) your appellant prays that the addition of ₹ 227,625/– be deleted from the total income of the assessee as assessed by the learned