ARIHANT DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -1 , KALYAN

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are\ndismissed

section 24(a) of the Act. The contention of the AO that the\nassessee is carrying out an organized activity of development and\nconstruction of godowns which are held as stock-in-trade and thus, the\nrental income generated in the course of the business has to be taxed as\nbusiness income and not as income from house property

ARIHANT DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -1, KALYAN

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are\ndismissed

section 24(a) of the Act. The contention of the AO that the\nassessee is carrying out an organized activity of development and\nconstruction of godowns which are held as stock-in-trade and thus, the\nrental income generated in the course of the business has to be taxed as\nbusiness income and not as income from house property

SIR RATAN TATA TRUST,MUMBAI SUBURBAN vs. ADDITIONAL /JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NFAC, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in both AY 2014-15 and AY

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

House, 24, National Faceless Assessment Homi Mody Street, Fort, Centre-2(1), Vs. Mumbai-400001 MTNL Tele Building, PAN : AAATS1013P Cumballa Hills, Peddar Road, Mumbai-400026. Appellant) : Respondent) Appellant/Assessee by : Shri P. J. Pardiwala a/w Shri Sukhsagar Syal, AR Revenue/Respondent by : Shri Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 22.07.2024 Date of Pronouncement 26.08.2024 : Per Padmavathy S, AM: 1. These

SIR RATAN TATA TRUST,MUMBAI SUBURBAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in both AY 2014-15 and AY

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

House, 24, National Faceless Assessment Homi Mody Street, Fort, Centre-2(1), Vs. Mumbai-400001 MTNL Tele Building, PAN : AAATS1013P Cumballa Hills, Peddar Road, Mumbai-400026. Appellant) : Respondent) Appellant/Assessee by : Shri P. J. Pardiwala a/w Shri Sukhsagar Syal, AR Revenue/Respondent by : Shri Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 22.07.2024 Date of Pronouncement 26.08.2024 : Per Padmavathy S, AM: 1. These

DY CIT-1(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly assessee is allowed partly whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

house property”. 6.2 As far as the issue of claim of the TDS is concerned As far as the issue of claim of the TDS is concerned As far as the issue of claim of the TDS is concerned, The assessee has taken credit of TDS of Rs. assessee has taken credit of TDS of Rs. Rs 1

M/S THE MAHARASHTRA STATE CO. OP BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO-1(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly assessee is allowed partly whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

house property”. 6.2 As far as the issue of claim of the TDS is concerned As far as the issue of claim of the TDS is concerned As far as the issue of claim of the TDS is concerned, The assessee has taken credit of TDS of Rs. assessee has taken credit of TDS of Rs. Rs 1

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

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

254 of the Act. M/s Nahalchand Laloochand Private Limited During set-aside proceedings, the assessee was required to furnish copies of lease agreement entered into with Bank of Baroda and to furnish detail of property assessment with Bombay Municipal Corporation along with copies of returns filed by assessee thereunder. 4.2 To verify the assessee’s claim of monthly tenancy, notice

BALAJI UNIVERSAL TRADELINK P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 40, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Sanjay Arora

Housing Developing Company vs DCIT (ITA No.38/2014) order dated 25/07/2014 from Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, Pr. CIT vs Kurele Paper Mills Pvt. ltd. (ITA No.369 of 20015) order dated 06/07/2015, CIT vs Continental warehousing corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd. (2015) 58 taxman.com 78(Bom.), All Cargo Global Logistic Ltd. vs DCIT (2012) 23 taxman.com 103(Bom.)(SB), held that

ASST CIT CIR 2, THANE vs. SALASAR DEVELOPERS, THANE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Housing Developing Company vs DCIT (ITA No.38/2014) order dated 25/07/2014 from Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, Pr. CIT vs Kurele Paper Mills Pvt. ltd. (ITA No.369 of 20015) order dated 06/07/2015, CIT vs Continental warehousing corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd. (2015) 58 taxman.com 78(Bom.), All Cargo Global Logistic Ltd. vs DCIT (2012) 23 taxman.com 103(Bom.)(SB), held that

ASST CIT CIR 2, THANE vs. SALASAR DEVELOPERS, THANE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Housing Developing Company vs DCIT (ITA No.38/2014) order dated 25/07/2014 from Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, Pr. CIT vs Kurele Paper Mills Pvt. ltd. (ITA No.369 of 20015) order dated 06/07/2015, CIT vs Continental warehousing corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd. (2015) 58 taxman.com 78(Bom.), All Cargo Global Logistic Ltd. vs DCIT (2012) 23 taxman.com 103(Bom.)(SB), held that

ASST CIT CIR 2, THANE vs. SALASAR DEVELOPERS, THANE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Housing Developing Company vs DCIT (ITA No.38/2014) order dated 25/07/2014 from Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, Pr. CIT vs Kurele Paper Mills Pvt. ltd. (ITA No.369 of 20015) order dated 06/07/2015, CIT vs Continental warehousing corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd. (2015) 58 taxman.com 78(Bom.), All Cargo Global Logistic Ltd. vs DCIT (2012) 23 taxman.com 103(Bom.)(SB), held that

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

property and rights of the company: (m) acquiring and undertaking the whole or an part of the business of any person or company, when such business is of a nature enumerated or described in this sub-section; (n) doing all such other things as are incidental or conducive to the promotion or advancement of the business of the company

ASST CIT CIR 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

property and rights of the company: (m) acquiring and undertaking the whole or an part of the business of any person or company, when such business is of a nature enumerated or described in this sub-section; (n) doing all such other things as are incidental or conducive to the promotion or advancement of the business of the company

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

254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. These cross appeals are directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-12 [Ld. CIT(A)], Mumbai dated 24.02.2016 in the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Act on 27.03.2014 for Assessment Year 2011-12. The Revenue has raised the following grounds

ASST CIT (E) I(1),MUMBAI vs. JAMSHETJEE TATA TRUST, MUMBAI

House, Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Vs 24, Homi Mody Street Mumbai-400 012. Mumbai-400 001. PAN:AAATJ 0095 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती िनधा"रती ओर ओर सेसेसेसे/Assessee by : Shri Dilip J. Thakkar िनधा"रती िनधा"रती ओर ओर राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Alok Johri-DR सुनवाई सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख / Date

R. KUNDAN & CO.,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 14(3)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

property documents, etc. It is also noted that for A.Y. 2007-08, the contention of the assessee as well as other details, contention of the Assessing Officer were considered holding that the period of stay of the assessee in India was 173 days as against 178 days determined by the Assessing Officer, meaning thereby, the period of stay was less

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

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 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 that Section