THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 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)

250 – Rajasthan Warehousing Corpn Ltd v/s. CIT(SC)  55 ITR 17 – CIT v/s Chugandas & Co. (SC)  32 ITR 688 – United Commercial Bank v/s CIT(SC)  82 ITR 452-CIT vs/ Maharashtra Sugar Mills (SC) 60. As per learned A.R under the provisions of section 37 of the Act, the entire expenditure be held to be allowable as a deduction since

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)

250 – Rajasthan Warehousing Corpn Ltd v/s. CIT(SC)  55 ITR 17 – CIT v/s Chugandas & Co. (SC)  32 ITR 688 – United Commercial Bank v/s CIT(SC)  82 ITR 452-CIT vs/ Maharashtra Sugar Mills (SC) 60. As per learned A.R under the provisions of section 37 of the Act, the entire expenditure be held to be allowable as a deduction since

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)

250 – Rajasthan Warehousing Corpn Ltd v/s. CIT(SC)  55 ITR 17 – CIT v/s Chugandas & Co. (SC)  32 ITR 688 – United Commercial Bank v/s CIT(SC)  82 ITR 452-CIT vs/ Maharashtra Sugar Mills (SC) 60. As per learned A.R under the provisions of section 37 of the Act, the entire expenditure be held to be allowable as a deduction since

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)

250 – Rajasthan Warehousing Corpn Ltd v/s. CIT(SC)  55 ITR 17 – CIT v/s Chugandas & Co. (SC)  32 ITR 688 – United Commercial Bank v/s CIT(SC)  82 ITR 452-CIT vs/ Maharashtra Sugar Mills (SC) 60. As per learned A.R under the provisions of section 37 of the Act, the entire expenditure be held to be allowable as a deduction since

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)

250 – Rajasthan Warehousing Corpn Ltd v/s. CIT(SC)  55 ITR 17 – CIT v/s Chugandas & Co. (SC)  32 ITR 688 – United Commercial Bank v/s CIT(SC)  82 ITR 452-CIT vs/ Maharashtra Sugar Mills (SC) 60. As per learned A.R under the provisions of section 37 of the Act, the entire expenditure be held to be allowable as a deduction since

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)

250 – Rajasthan Warehousing Corpn Ltd v/s. CIT(SC)  55 ITR 17 – CIT v/s Chugandas & Co. (SC)  32 ITR 688 – United Commercial Bank v/s CIT(SC)  82 ITR 452-CIT vs/ Maharashtra Sugar Mills (SC) 60. As per learned A.R under the provisions of section 37 of the Act, the entire expenditure be held to be allowable as a deduction since

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)

250 – Rajasthan Warehousing Corpn Ltd v/s. CIT(SC)  55 ITR 17 – CIT v/s Chugandas & Co. (SC)  32 ITR 688 – United Commercial Bank v/s CIT(SC)  82 ITR 452-CIT vs/ Maharashtra Sugar Mills (SC) 60. As per learned A.R under the provisions of section 37 of the Act, the entire expenditure be held to be allowable as a deduction since

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

250 of the Income-tax Act,1961 ("Act"), your appellant prefers this appeal, among others, on the following grounds of appeal, each of which is without prejudice to, and independent of, the other: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in rejecting the appellant's contention that

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

6 are mutually exclusive, specific head covering items of income arising from a particular source. In Fry v. Salisbury House Estates Co. Ltd. a company formed to acquire, manage and deal with a block of buildings, having let out the rooms as unfurnished offices to tenants, was held chargeable to tax under Schedule A to the Income

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

Section under which order Date of order is passed 1 2016-17 143(3) 26.12.2018 2 2017-18 143(3) 21.12.2019 3 2018-19 143(3) 21.06.2021 4 2019-20 143(1) 28.03.2021 5 2020-21 143(3) 22.09.2022 6 2021-22 143(1) 07.03.2023 We considering the facts, circumstances and submissions as discussed in the above paragraphs observe that

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

Section under which order Date of order is passed 1 2016-17 143(3) 26.12.2018 2 2017-18 143(3) 21.12.2019 3 2018-19 143(3) 21.06.2021 4 2019-20 143(1) 28.03.2021 5 2020-21 143(3) 22.09.2022 6 2021-22 143(1) 07.03.2023 We considering the facts, circumstances and submissions as discussed in the above paragraphs observe that

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

Section under which order Date of order is passed 1 2016-17 143(3) 26.12.2018 2 2017-18 143(3) 21.12.2019 3 2018-19 143(3) 21.06.2021 4 2019-20 143(1) 28.03.2021 5 2020-21 143(3) 22.09.2022 6 2021-22 143(1) 07.03.2023 We considering the facts, circumstances and submissions as discussed in the above paragraphs observe that

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

Section under which order Date of order is passed 1 2016-17 143(3) 26.12.2018 2 2017-18 143(3) 21.12.2019 3 2018-19 143(3) 21.06.2021 4 2019-20 143(1) 28.03.2021 5 2020-21 143(3) 22.09.2022 6 2021-22 143(1) 07.03.2023 We considering the facts, circumstances and submissions as discussed in the above paragraphs observe that

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

Section under which order Date of order is passed 1 2016-17 143(3) 26.12.2018 2 2017-18 143(3) 21.12.2019 3 2018-19 143(3) 21.06.2021 4 2019-20 143(1) 28.03.2021 5 2020-21 143(3) 22.09.2022 6 2021-22 143(1) 07.03.2023 We considering the facts, circumstances and submissions as discussed in the above paragraphs observe that

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

Section under which order Date of order is passed 1 2016-17 143(3) 26.12.2018 2 2017-18 143(3) 21.12.2019 3 2018-19 143(3) 21.06.2021 4 2019-20 143(1) 28.03.2021 5 2020-21 143(3) 22.09.2022 6 2021-22 143(1) 07.03.2023 We considering the facts, circumstances and submissions as discussed in the above paragraphs observe that

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

Section under which order Date of order is passed 1 2016-17 143(3) 26.12.2018 2 2017-18 143(3) 21.12.2019 3 2018-19 143(3) 21.06.2021 4 2019-20 143(1) 28.03.2021 5 2020-21 143(3) 22.09.2022 6 2021-22 143(1) 07.03.2023 We considering the facts, circumstances and submissions as discussed in the above paragraphs observe that

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