DIRECTI INTERNET SOLUTIONS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 5(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

house property. The relevant provision reads reads as under: “23(1) For the purposes of section 22, the annual value of any property “23(1) For the purposes of section 22, the annual value of any property “23(1) For the purposes of section 22, the annual value of any property shall be deemed to be shall be deemed

DIRECTI INTERNET SOLUTIONS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 5(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

house property. The relevant provision reads reads as under: “23(1) For the purposes of section 22, the annual value of any property “23(1) For the purposes of section 22, the annual value of any property “23(1) For the purposes of section 22, the annual value of any property shall be deemed to be shall be deemed

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

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

property invoking the provisions of clause (b) of subsection (4) of Section 23 of The Income Tax Act. 016. Accordingly, the total income of the assessee was assessed at ₹ 1,251,425/– against the returned income of ₹ 1,023,860/– making an addition of ₹ 227,625/- under the head income from house

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

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

property invoking the provisions of clause (b) of subsection (4) of Section 23 of The Income Tax Act. 016. Accordingly, the total income of the assessee was assessed at ₹ 1,251,425/– against the returned income of ₹ 1,023,860/– making an addition of ₹ 227,625/- under the head income from house

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

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

property invoking the provisions of clause (b) of subsection (4) of Section 23 of The Income Tax Act. 016. Accordingly, the total income of the assessee was assessed at ₹ 1,251,425/– against the returned income of ₹ 1,023,860/– making an addition of ₹ 227,625/- under the head income from house

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

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

property invoking the provisions of clause (b) of subsection (4) of Section 23 of The Income Tax Act. 016. Accordingly, the total income of the assessee was assessed at ₹ 1,251,425/– against the returned income of ₹ 1,023,860/– making an addition of ₹ 227,625/- under the head income from house

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

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

property invoking the provisions of clause (b) of subsection (4) of Section 23 of The Income Tax Act. 016. Accordingly, the total income of the assessee was assessed at ₹ 1,251,425/– against the returned income of ₹ 1,023,860/– making an addition of ₹ 227,625/- under the head income from house

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

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

property invoking the provisions of clause (b) of subsection (4) of Section 23 of The Income Tax Act. 016. Accordingly, the total income of the assessee was assessed at ₹ 1,251,425/– against the returned income of ₹ 1,023,860/– making an addition of ₹ 227,625/- under the head income from house

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. THE NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, MUMBAI

properties of RS.4,08,67,975 and reduce the total income accordingly.\n2A. Without prejudice to Ground no. 2 above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, assuming without accepting that amortization of lease premium of Rs.4,08,67,975 is in the nature of capital expenditure, the learned ACIT be directed to allow

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

properties of RS.4,08,67,975 and reduce\nthe total income accordingly.\n2A. Without prejudice to Ground no. 2 above, on the facts and in the\ncircumstances of the case and in law, assuming without accepting that\namortization of lease premium of Rs.4,08,67,975 is in the nature of capital\nexpenditure, the learned ACIT be directed to allow

M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORP. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR. 1(1), MUMBAI

251\nLess:\nOther Depreciation (Allocated in the ratio\n81.59: 18.41)\n63,307,993\nOther Expenses (Allocated in the ratio\n81.59: 18.41)\n10,946,141,232\nTotal Expenses\n11,009,449,225\nProfit Before Tax\n2,444663,026\n8.\nIn the course of assessment, ld. Assessing Officer noted that\nassessee has considered the following income in determining profits\nderived from

M/S. HOUSING DEVELOP,MENT FINANCE CORPN. LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

251\nLess:\nOther Depreciation (Allocated in the ratio\n81.59: 18.41)\n63,307,993\nOther Expenses (Allocated in the ratio\n81.59: 18.41)\n10,946,141,232\nTotal Expenses\n11,009,449,225\nProfit Before Tax\n2,444663,026\n8. In the course of assessment, ld. Assessing Officer noted that\nassessee has considered the following income in determining profits\nderived from

THE DY CIT CIR 1(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPN LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the three appeals by the Revenue are partly\nallowed

251\nLess:\nOther Depreciation (Allocated in the ratio\n81.59: 18.41)\n63,307,993\nOther Expenses (Allocated in the ratio\n81.59: 18.41)\n10,946,141,232\nTotal Expenses\n11,009,449,225\nProfit Before Tax\n2,444663,026\n8. In the course of assessment, ld. Assessing Officer noted that\nassessee has considered the following income in determining profits\nderived from

M/S. HOUSING DEVELOP,MENT FINANCE CORPN. LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ADDL CIT RG-1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the three appeals by the Revenue are partly\nallowed

251\nLess:\nOther Depreciation (Allocated in the ratio\n81.59: 18.41)\n63,307,993\nOther Expenses (Allocated in the ratio\n81.59: 18.41)\n10,946,141,232\nTotal Expenses\n11,009,449,225\nProfit Before Tax\n2,444663,026\n8. In the course of assessment, ld. Assessing Officer noted that\nassessee has considered the following income in determining profits\nderived from

DCIT CIR 1(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPN. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the three appeals by the Revenue are partly\nallowed

251\n63,307,993\n10,946,141,232\n11,009,449,225\n2,444663,026\n8. In the course of assessment, ld. Assessing Officer noted that\nassessee has considered the following income in determining profits\nderived from the business of providing long time finance for\nconstruction or purchase of houses for residential purposes.\na) Interest on deposits\nb) Interest

THE DY CIT CIR 1(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPN LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the three appeals by the Revenue are partly\nallowed

251\n63,307,993\n10,946,141,232\n11,009,449,225\n2,444663,026\n8. In the course of assessment, ld. Assessing Officer noted that\nassessee has considered the following income in determining profits\nderived from the business of providing long time finance for\nconstruction or purchase of houses for residential purposes.\na) Interest on deposits\nb) Interest

MORA] FINANZ CORPORATION,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRLE - 5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as per above direction

Bench: Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

House Property. The appellant cannot force the AO to adopt a particular method of estimating the ALV. Therefore, this argument is also rejected. 5.6. The appellant has also submitted that the premises in question remained vacant throughout the year and hence the appellant is eligible for vacancy allowance under proviso to section 23(1) of the Act as against

MORAJ FINANZ CORPORATION,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as per above direction

Bench: Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

House Property. The appellant cannot force the AO to adopt a particular method of estimating the ALV. Therefore, this argument is also rejected. 5.6. The appellant has also submitted that the premises in question remained vacant throughout the year and hence the appellant is eligible for vacancy allowance under proviso to section 23(1) of the Act as against