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

house property which is\nalready discussed at para 3.1 of the assessment order by the assessing\nofficer therefore this ground of appeal filed by the revenue become\ninfructuous and the same is dismissed. Therefore, the same is\ndismissed.\n9.3 Ground No. 5 relates to allowing claim of interest expenses u/s\n24(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

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

ACIT 6(3), MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

house property\nexcluding the portions occupied by the Assessee for the purpose of\nbusiness or profession can be computed. However, the Revenue has\nfailed to point out corresponding provision providing for\ncomputation of depreciation and WDV of Block of Assets excluding\nthe WDV of the asset let out during the relevant previous year.\n7. 8. We note that Section

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

GALAXY CO OP HSG SOCIETY LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD(1)(1), THANE, THANE, MAHARAHSTRA

house property u/s 80P(2)(c) of the Act and claimed the same as exempt u/s 80P(2)(d) & u/s 80P(2)(c) of the Act, respectively. The said claim of the Assessee was disallowed by the CPC, vide intimation/order dated 20.05.2015 u/s 143(1) of the Act.\n4. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said intimation/order dated

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

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ROMELL HOUSING LLP, MUMBAI

In the result, the Cross Objection by the assessee is allowed, while the\nRevenue's Appeal is dismissed

Housing LLP,\n101, B-Wing, Gharkul Co-op. Society,\nAzad Road, Vile Parle East,\nMumbai - 400057,\nMaharashtra\nPAN: AATFR3895F\nCross Objector\n(Original Respondent)\nDeputy Commissioner of Income Tax,\nCentral Circle – 4(4),\nMumbai - 400021,\nMaharashtra\nVS.\nRespondent\n(Original Appellant)\nAssessee by : Shri Nitesh Joshi\nRevenue by :Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR\nDate of Hearing – 25/09/2024\nDate of Order

GALAXY COOP HSG SOC LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD(1)(1), THANE, THANE, MAHARAHSTRA

house property u/s 80P(2)(c) of the Act and claimed the same\nas exempt u/s 80P(2)(d) & u/s 80P(2)(c) of the Act, respectively.\nThe said claim of the Assessee was disallowed by the CPC, vide\nintimation/order dated 20.05.2015 u/s 143(1) of the Act.\n4. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said\nintimation/order dated

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

253,995\n51,953,437\n176,000\n484,845\n500\n7\nITA Nos.7532/MUM/2004 & others\nHDFC Bank Ltd.\nAYs 1999-2000, 2000-01 & 2001-02\nCorporate Deposits\n1,301,388,075\nCOD-Banks/Financial Institutions\n2,761,916\nIDBI Deposits\n92,632,663\nInterest on Bank Deposits\n362,033,725\n4\nInterest on Investments\nDebentures\n774,655,522\nGovernment Securities\n127

MSEB HOLDING COMPANY LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (HQ) (JUDL) TO THE CIT 14, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-13

253(3) of the Act providing limitation in in filing in the appeal to the ITAT, to the ITAT, are plain and unambiguous. The assessee was very well aware that limitation for unambiguous. The assessee was very well aware that limitation for unambiguous. The assessee was very well aware that limitation for filing the appeal before the filing the appeal

MSEB HOLDING COMPANY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-13

253(3) of the Act providing limitation in in filing in the appeal to the ITAT, to the ITAT, are plain and unambiguous. The assessee was very well aware that limitation for unambiguous. The assessee was very well aware that limitation for unambiguous. The assessee was very well aware that limitation for filing the appeal before the filing the appeal