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 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

PRIYA MOHAN GURNANI,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

PRIYA MOHAN GURNANI,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

PRIYA MOHAN GURNANI,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

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

PRIYA MOHAN GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. CY 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

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

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

Section 24\nDeduction u/s 24(a) @ 30% NVA (Standard deduction)\nDeduction u/s\nborrowed\n24(b) on account of interest on\nAmount\nXXXX\nXXXX\nXXXX\nXXXX\nXXXX\nIncome from house property\nXXXX\n11. The Ld.AR explained that the revenue authorities has\naccepted the method of offering of rental income for the\nA.Y.2016-17 to A.Y.2021-22, where the assessee has offered\nrental income

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

In the result, the\nappeal filed by the revenue is dismissed\n35

House Property' and common area maintenance charges under 'Income from Business'. Deductions would be allowed accordingly. The Tribunal also addressed grounds related to brought forward book losses, interest expenses, and set-off of interest income on fixed deposits.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "Sec 250

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6(1)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ISLAND STAR MALL DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LTD, MUMBAI

house property' and common area maintenance charges under 'Income from business'. The AO was directed to allow deductions incurred wholly and exclusively for earning income. The appeal filed by the assessee was partly allowed, and the revenue's appeal was dismissed.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "Sec. 250

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals filed\nby the revenue are dismissed

Section 24\nDeduction u/s 24(a) @ 30% NVA (Standard deduction)\nXXXX\nDeduction\nu/s\n24(b) on account of interest on XXXX\nborrowed\nXXXX\nIncome from house property\nXXXX\n11. The Ld.AR explained that the revenue authorities has\naccepted the method of offering of rental income for the\nA.Y.2016-17 to A.Y.2021-22, where the assessee has offered\nrental income under the income

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

250/- under the head “Income from Business/Profession”.\n2. Without prejudice to ground No. 1, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not holding that the sum of\nRs.2,30,53,909/- [being 59% of 5,14,70,407-73,13,631] is required to be allowed\nunder the head business income out of the total legal and professional charges. The\napplicant

SARITA SUNIL MANTRI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for stati...

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sarita Sunil Mantri, Ito-7(2)(1), Flat 3 & 4, Kamal Building, Aayakar Bhavan, 69 Walkeshwar Road, Opp. Vs. Mumbai-400020. Gopi Birla School, Walkeshwar, Mumbai-400006. Pan No. Adxpm 8070 E Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Abhishek Jhunjhunwala, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Aditya Rai, Dr : Date Of Hearing 17/01/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 19/01/2023

250/- under the head ‘income from house property’ and under the head ‘income from house property’ and under the head ‘income from house property’ and capital loss of ₹50,86,006/- and same might be allowed to long term capital loss of and same might be allowed to set off against respective income in current year. spective income in current

CHERYL OSCAR PEREIRA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 13(1)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’), for Assessment Year 2015-16, date of order 19.01.2024.The impugned order was emanated from the order of the Ld.Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-13(1)(2), Mumbai (in short, ‘the A.O.’) passed under section 143(3) of the Act. 2. The assesseehas taken the following grounds of appeal