DCIT 5(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. DEEPAK SHASHI BHUSHAN ROY, MUMBAI

In the result these grounds of appeal raised

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahaha & Shri Pawan Singhdcit 5(3)(1), Deepak Shashi Bhusan Roy, Flat Room No.573, Aayakar Bhavan, No.11, Rambha Chs Ltd, M.K.Road, Nepean Sea Road, Vs. Mumbai 400020 Mumbai-400006 Pan:Aaapr 7703 F

section 143(3). The assessing officer while passing assessment order made addition of Rs. 51,98,928/-on account of annual letting value (ALV) of property at Flat No.11, Rambha Co- operative Group Housing Society, at Nepean Sea Road, Mumbai against the income declared from house property of Rs. 2,797/-. The assessing officer also denied long-term capital loss

SHARAN HOSPITALITY P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 9(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6717/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Sharan Hospitality Private Limited Dy. Cit – Circle 9(3) बनाम/ Ground Floor, Gys Infinity, Mumbai Paranjape ‘B’, Scheme, Subhas Road, Vs. Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-57 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aagcs 8608 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. Priyanka Jain ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K. Mahondas सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 26.5.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 12.9.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 18.9.2012, Dismissing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting Its Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2009- 10 Vide Order Dated 22.12.2011. 2. The Only Issue Arising In This Appeal Is The Correct Amount At Which The Annual Value In Respect Of The Assessee’S Swami Vivekanand (S.V.) Road, Mumbai Property

house property, or the actual receipt of rent, and is in the nature of an artificial or statutory income. The law in the matter is well-settled, for which reference is made to CIT vs. Dalhousie Properties Ltd. [1984] 149 ITR 708 (SC); New Piece Goods Bazar

CLASSIC MALL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 6(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17

253 units. For the let-out units, assessee offered rental income under the head “income from house property” which is not in dispute. Ld. Assessing Officer noted that assessee did not offer any income on the units which were not let out, i.e., the eight units, as required u/s. 23(1)(a) at expected reasonable rate. The details of these

DCIT- 8(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. PIRAMAL ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

property; and (ii) the deduction under section 24(b) of the Act cannot be allowed on the basis OT area let out. In our view. the reasons on the basis of which the Assessing Officer disallowed deduction under section 24(b) of the Act, are unacceptable. Undisputedly, the loan was sanctioned for construction of the entire building. When a part

DCIT- 8(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. PIRAMAL ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

house property which is already discussed at para 3.1 of the assessment order by the assessing officer therefore this ground of appeal filed by the revenue become infructuous and the same is dismissed. Therefore, the same is dismissed. 9.3 Ground No. 5 relates to allowing claim of interest expenses u/s 24(b) on the basis of area allocation for portion

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD ( CORPORATE FINANCE DIVISION),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 6(3), MUMBAI

Bench: the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal preferred by the Assessee vide order, dated 18/05/2009. 4. Not being satisfied with the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A), the Assessee has preferred appeal before this Tribunal. The Revenue has also filed cross-appeal challenging the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A).

house property excluding the portions occupied by the Assessee for the purpose of business or profession can be computed. However, the Revenue has failed to point out corresponding provision providing for Assessment Years: 2006-2007 computation of depreciation and WDV of Block of Assets excluding the WDV of the asset let out during the relevant previous year. 7.8. We note

ACIT, CIRCLE-24(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. NAKUL AGGARWAL, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

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

253(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") against the order dated 26 March 2024 ("Impugned Order") passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [CIT(A)] under Section 250 of the Act on the following grounds: Ground 1: General 1. The order of the learned CIT(A) is based on incorrect

NAKUL AGGARWAL,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-24(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

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

253(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") against the order dated 26 March 2024 ("Impugned Order") passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [CIT(A)] under Section 250 of the Act on the following grounds: Ground 1: General 1. The order of the learned CIT(A) is based on incorrect

MARINE CONTAINER SERVICES,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 12 (2), MUMBAI

In the result this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Marine Container Services, Dy.Cit, Circle-17(2), Room No. 123, 1St Floor, 71, World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400005. Mumbai-20. Pan: Aaafm9838J Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri B.V. Jhaveri (Ar) Respondent By : Shri T.A. Khan (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 16.05.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.08.2018 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh;

253 of the Act is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-28, Mumbai [ld. CIT(A)] passed under section 143(3) dated 12.04.2016 for Assessment Year 2011-12. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred

PEGASUS PROPERTIES P. LTD.,PUNE vs. DY CIT, CC-2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

house property’. The provisions of Section 23(4) of the Act are meant only for properties that are held as investments and not as stock in trade. We find that decision rendered by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Mangla Homes Pvt. Ltd., reported in 325 ITR 281 would not be applicable in the instant case

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

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. B.R. Baskaran & Sh. Pawan Singh

section 253 of the Income Tax Act (‘Act’) is directed by assessee against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-50, Mumbai dated 23/04/2013 for Assessment Year (AY) 2005-06. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: Ground No. 1 : On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned

ASST CIT CEN CIR 29, MUMBAI vs. SHAH RUKH KHAN, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri N.K.Pradhan, Am Dy. Commissoner Of Income-Tax, Shri Shah Rukh Khan Central Circle-4(2), Mumbai 44-Mannat, B.J. Road, Band बिधम/ (Erstwhile Assistant Commissioner Of Income Stand, Bandra (West), Tax, Central Circle-29, Mumbai) Mumbai-400 050. Vs. R. No. 1918, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aahpk3293L (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

house property. The ld. D.R submitted that as the addition made in respect of the variation of the annual lettable value of the property was on the basis of the figure provided by the assessee on the basis of a valuation report procured by him, therefore, it could safely be concluded that neither the issue nor the quantification

ASST CIT 16(3), MUMBAI vs. MUKTABEN G. KAKADIA, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by Revenue for AY 2009-10 is dismissed and the appeal for AY 2010-11 is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singh

section 253 of the Income-tax Act (the Act) are directed against the order of ld. CIT(A)-27, Mumbai dated 31.10.2013 & 07.10.2013 for Assessment Year 2009-10 & 2010-11 respectively. 2. First we shall take appeal ITA No. 332/Mum/2014. The Revenue has filed this appeal against the deletion of penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Though

ASST CIT 16(3), MUMBAI vs. MUKTABEN G. KAKADIA, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by Revenue for AY 2009-10 is dismissed and the appeal for AY 2010-11 is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singh

section 253 of the Income-tax Act (the Act) are directed against the order of ld. CIT(A)-27, Mumbai dated 31.10.2013 & 07.10.2013 for Assessment Year 2009-10 & 2010-11 respectively. 2. First we shall take appeal ITA No. 332/Mum/2014. The Revenue has filed this appeal against the deletion of penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Though

CRIMSON PROPERTY PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO 5(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, ground of appeal raised by assessee is

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singh

Property Pvt. Ltd. ITO Ward-5(1)(3), 3rd Floor, Sunama House, 5th Floor, Room No. 569, Kemps Corner, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Opp. Shalimar Hotel, Mumbai-400050. Vs. Mumbai-400036. PAN: AAACC2206R Appellant Respondent : Shri Bhavin Parekh (AR) Appellant by Respondent by : Shri Ajay Kumar Kesheri ( Sr. DR) Date of Hearing : 30.04.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 31.05.2019 ORDER UNDER SECTION

ITO 25(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. PALLAVI V. GORADIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singh

Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JM: 1. The present appeal filed by Revenue u/s 253 of the Income-Tax Act against the order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [for short ‘the CIT(A)] –32, Mumbai dated 12.11.2014 for Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal

ASHISH LAND & PROPERTY DEVELOPERS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 9(1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Ashish Land & Property Ito-9(1)(4) Developers Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, 215, Atrium, 10Th Floor, Vs. New Marine Lines, Near Marriot Courtyard Hotel, Mumbai. Andheri-Kurla Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400093. Pan: Aagca2673J Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Anuj Kisnadwala (Ar) Respondent By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 01.05.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2018 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh;

253 of the I.T. Act (the Act) is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-16, [ld. CIT(A)] Mumbai dated 02.09.2016 for Assessment Year 2012-13. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax, erred in law & facts in confirming order of Assessing officer -of disallowing alternate

AMAZIA DEVELOPERS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT-1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

253 of Income tax Act is directed against the order of learned Principal of Commissioner of Income tax-1, Mumbai, passed under section 263 on 27th March 2017 for assessment year 2012-13. 2. Brief facts of the case are the assessee company is engaged in property development, filed its return of income for relevant assessment year on 30th September

RAMESH BUILDERS,MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee-Ramesh Builders(India) in ITA N0

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1797/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Ramesh Builders (India), Income Tax बनाम/ 9, Dhiraj Chambers, Officer,12(1)(2),Aayakar V. 9, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Bhavan,M.K. Road, Fort,Mumbai – 400001. Mumbai. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaafr4655E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

house property. Hence, the same is not allowable expenses as it is not in connection with the business carried on by the assessee. Further, it was observed that the compensation expenses of Rs. 2,40,35,000/- does not fall under the purview of section 24 of the Act. Reliance was placed by the AO on the decision