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

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

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

5 Sharan Hospitality Private Limited vs. Dy. CIT Aryabhata Properties Ltd. vs. Asst. CIT (in ITA No. 6928/Mum/2011 dated 31.7.2013); and Asst. CIT vs. Suryashankar Properties Ltd. (in ITA No. 5258/Mum/2013 dated 10.6.2015). The Revenue’s case is that the notion of ‘proposed to be let’ or ‘held for letting’, etc., cannot be imported into the provision, which seeks

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

BARCLAYS BANK PLC,MUMBAI vs. CIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-RANGE-1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

Properties v. Director of Income-tax [1996] 57 lTD 328 (Bombay,) wherein the Tribunal upheld the argument of the assessee that when an order is passed by the Assessing Officer pursuant to the directions of a superior authority, the same could not be the subject matter of revision under section 263 of the Act. 1.6. The appellant submits that

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

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

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

DY.CIT (E) -2(1) , MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI EDUCATIONAL TRUST, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

house for faculty and sample copies of requisition slips were submitted before the A.O. during the course of reassessment proceedings. 4) The applicability of Section 13(2)(b) arises when any property of the trust is made available to specified persons exclusively. If the property is made available to everyone irrespective of whether they are specified persons or not, then

DY.CIT (E) -2(1) , MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI EDUCATIONAL TRUST, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

house for faculty and sample copies of requisition slips were submitted before the A.O. during the course of reassessment proceedings. 4) The applicability of Section 13(2)(b) arises when any property of the trust is made available to specified persons exclusively. If the property is made available to everyone irrespective of whether they are specified persons or not, then

DY.CIT (E) -2(1) , MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI EDUCATIONAL TRUST, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

house for faculty and sample copies of requisition slips were submitted before the A.O. during the course of reassessment proceedings. 4) The applicability of Section 13(2)(b) arises when any property of the trust is made available to specified persons exclusively. If the property is made available to everyone irrespective of whether they are specified persons or not, then

DY.CIT (E) -2(1) , MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI EDUCATIONAL TRUST, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

house for faculty and sample copies of requisition slips were submitted before the A.O. during the course of reassessment proceedings. 4) The applicability of Section 13(2)(b) arises when any property of the trust is made available to specified persons exclusively. If the property is made available to everyone irrespective of whether they are specified persons or not, then

VODAFONE INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

House of Lords in Salomon v. Salomon [1897] A.C. 22 that opened the door to the formation of a corporate group. If a "one man" corporation could be incorporated, then it would follow that one corporation could be a subsidiary of another. This legal principle is the basis of Holding Structures. It is a common practice in international law, which

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

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

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

CHAMBER OF INDIAN CHARITABLE TRUSTS,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT/ COMM OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 2168 & 2169/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2022-23) Chamber Of Indian बिधम/ Pcit Charitable Trusts Mumbai-400020. Vs. Gala No.328-332, Linkway Estates, New Link Road, Malad (W), Mumbai- 400064. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaicc9627J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. J. Pardiwala & Mr. Sukhsagar Syal. Revenue By: Shri Nihar Samal (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Trust Against The Imposition Of Certain Impugned Conditions In The Orders Passed By The Ld. Cit(E), Mumbai Dated 24.09.2021 & 24.05.2021, Whereby The Ld. Cit(E) Granted Registration U/S 12Ab(1)(A) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) & Under Clause (Iii) Of The Second Proviso To Section 80G(5) Of The Act

House of Parliament would not, however, prevent the courts from scrutinising the validity of the rules and holding them to be ultra vires if on such scrutiny the rules are found to be beyond the rule-making power of the Central Government. Thus, section 296 does not add any greater force to the rules than what they ordinarily have

CHAMBER OF INDIAN CHARITABLE TRUSTS,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT/ COMM OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 2168 & 2169/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2022-23) Chamber Of Indian बिधम/ Pcit Charitable Trusts Mumbai-400020. Vs. Gala No.328-332, Linkway Estates, New Link Road, Malad (W), Mumbai- 400064. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaicc9627J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. J. Pardiwala & Mr. Sukhsagar Syal. Revenue By: Shri Nihar Samal (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Trust Against The Imposition Of Certain Impugned Conditions In The Orders Passed By The Ld. Cit(E), Mumbai Dated 24.09.2021 & 24.05.2021, Whereby The Ld. Cit(E) Granted Registration U/S 12Ab(1)(A) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) & Under Clause (Iii) Of The Second Proviso To Section 80G(5) Of The Act

House of Parliament would not, however, prevent the courts from scrutinising the validity of the rules and holding them to be ultra vires if on such scrutiny the rules are found to be beyond the rule-making power of the Central Government. Thus, section 296 does not add any greater force to the rules than what they ordinarily have

NERKA CHEMICALS P. LTD,GUJRAT vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 38, MUMBAI

In the result this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Accountant Mamber & Shri Pawan Singh

253 of Income tax Act are directed against the separate orders of Commissioner (Appeals)- 54, Mumbai for assessment year 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12. The assessee has raised one common ground of appeal in all assessment years, on disallowance under section14A, thus on the request of parties all appeals were clubbed together, heard and are decided by common

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