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

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

house property and allocation of such expenses has not been made resulting into income escaping assessment. 14. It is clear from the record that assessment was reopened beyond the period of 4 years since notice u/s 148 was issued on 29-3-2012. If the assessment has to be reopened beyond four years, then there must be a failure

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

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

house property and allocation of such expenses has not been made resulting into income escaping assessment. 14. It is clear from the record that assessment was reopened beyond the period of 4 years since notice u/s 148 was issued on 29-3-2012. If the assessment has to be reopened beyond four years, then there must be a failure

ASST CIT CC 8(4), MUMBAI vs. PHOENIX MILLS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

house property and allocation of such expenses has not been made resulting into income escaping assessment. 14. It is clear from the record that assessment was reopened beyond the period of 4 years since notice u/s 148 was issued on 29-3-2012. If the assessment has to be reopened beyond four years, then there must be a failure

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

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

house property and allocation of such expenses has not been made resulting into income escaping assessment. 14. It is clear from the record that assessment was reopened beyond the period of 4 years since notice u/s 148 was issued on 29-3-2012. If the assessment has to be reopened beyond four years, then there must be a failure

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

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

house property and allocation of such expenses has not been made resulting into income escaping assessment. 14. It is clear from the record that assessment was reopened beyond the period of 4 years since notice u/s 148 was issued on 29-3-2012. If the assessment has to be reopened beyond four years, then there must be a failure

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

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

house property and allocation of such expenses has not been made resulting into income escaping assessment. 14. It is clear from the record that assessment was reopened beyond the period of 4 years since notice u/s 148 was issued on 29-3-2012. If the assessment has to be reopened beyond four years, then there must be a failure

ASST CIT CC 8(4), MUMBAI vs. PHOENIX MILLS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

house property and allocation of such expenses has not been made resulting into income escaping assessment. 14. It is clear from the record that assessment was reopened beyond the period of 4 years since notice u/s 148 was issued on 29-3-2012. If the assessment has to be reopened beyond four years, then there must be a failure

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

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

Section 143 (3) dated 26/12/2018 passed by the learned assessing officer. 050. Assessee originally filed return of income on 31/7/2013 declaring income of ₹ 4,485,040/–. This return was accepted as it is and not selected for scrutiny. Subsequently search took place on 4/2/2016, based on which the notices u/s 153A was issued to the assessee on 5/1/2017, which

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

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

Section 143 (3) dated 26/12/2018 passed by the learned assessing officer. 050. Assessee originally filed return of income on 31/7/2013 declaring income of ₹ 4,485,040/–. This return was accepted as it is and not selected for scrutiny. Subsequently search took place on 4/2/2016, based on which the notices u/s 153A was issued to the assessee on 5/1/2017, which

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

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

Section 143 (3) dated 26/12/2018 passed by the learned assessing officer. 050. Assessee originally filed return of income on 31/7/2013 declaring income of ₹ 4,485,040/–. This return was accepted as it is and not selected for scrutiny. Subsequently search took place on 4/2/2016, based on which the notices u/s 153A was issued to the assessee on 5/1/2017, which

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

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

Section 143 (3) dated 26/12/2018 passed by the learned assessing officer. 050. Assessee originally filed return of income on 31/7/2013 declaring income of ₹ 4,485,040/–. This return was accepted as it is and not selected for scrutiny. Subsequently search took place on 4/2/2016, based on which the notices u/s 153A was issued to the assessee on 5/1/2017, which

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

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

Section 143 (3) dated 26/12/2018 passed by the learned assessing officer. 050. Assessee originally filed return of income on 31/7/2013 declaring income of ₹ 4,485,040/–. This return was accepted as it is and not selected for scrutiny. Subsequently search took place on 4/2/2016, based on which the notices u/s 153A was issued to the assessee on 5/1/2017, which

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

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

Section 143 (3) dated 26/12/2018 passed by the learned assessing officer. 050. Assessee originally filed return of income on 31/7/2013 declaring income of ₹ 4,485,040/–. This return was accepted as it is and not selected for scrutiny. Subsequently search took place on 4/2/2016, based on which the notices u/s 153A was issued to the assessee on 5/1/2017, which

DCIT CC 4(2), MUMBAI vs. K RAHEJA COPR PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ravish Soodk. Raheja Corporate Services Acit-14(2)(1), Room No. 432, 4Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. C-30, G- Block, Opp. Sidbi, Bkc, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Bandra, Mumbai-400 051 Road, Mumbai-400 020. Vs. Pan: Aabcn 9309B Appellant Respondent K. Raheja Corporate Pvt. Ltd., Dcit- Central Circle 4(2), Room No. 1918, 19Th Plot No. C-30, G-Block, Opp. Sidbi, Bkc, Bandra – (E), Floor, Air India Building, Mumbai-400 051 Nariman Point, Mumbai- Vs. 400 021. Pan: Aaacp0522B Appellant Respondent Dcit, Central Circle - M/S K. Raheja Corp. Pvt. (2)(1), Central Range -4 Ltd., Plot No. C-30, Block -G, Pr.Cit (C)-2 Bkc, Bandra (Eest), Room No. 1918, 19Th Mumbai-400 051 Vs. Floor, Air India Building, Pan: Aaacp0522B Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021. Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Madhur Aggrawal (Ar) Revenue By : Shri. Shiddaramappa (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 12.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.10.2021

House Property. The appellant accordingly prays that the lease rentals be assessed to tax under the head Income from Business & Profession. On the other hand, the revenue is aggrieved with the impugned order on the following grounds: 1. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id CIT(A) has erred in restricting the disallowance

K. RAHEJA CORPORATE SERVICES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 14(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ravish Soodk. Raheja Corporate Services Acit-14(2)(1), Room No. 432, 4Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. C-30, G- Block, Opp. Sidbi, Bkc, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Bandra, Mumbai-400 051 Road, Mumbai-400 020. Vs. Pan: Aabcn 9309B Appellant Respondent K. Raheja Corporate Pvt. Ltd., Dcit- Central Circle 4(2), Room No. 1918, 19Th Plot No. C-30, G-Block, Opp. Sidbi, Bkc, Bandra – (E), Floor, Air India Building, Mumbai-400 051 Nariman Point, Mumbai- Vs. 400 021. Pan: Aaacp0522B Appellant Respondent Dcit, Central Circle - M/S K. Raheja Corp. Pvt. (2)(1), Central Range -4 Ltd., Plot No. C-30, Block -G, Pr.Cit (C)-2 Bkc, Bandra (Eest), Room No. 1918, 19Th Mumbai-400 051 Vs. Floor, Air India Building, Pan: Aaacp0522B Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021. Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Madhur Aggrawal (Ar) Revenue By : Shri. Shiddaramappa (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 12.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.10.2021

House Property. The appellant accordingly prays that the lease rentals be assessed to tax under the head Income from Business & Profession. On the other hand, the revenue is aggrieved with the impugned order on the following grounds: 1. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id CIT(A) has erred in restricting the disallowance

YATIN PRAKASH TELANG,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-21(3)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

house has been purchased out of own sources i.e. savings from saving bank account and bank loans. According to AO, the assessee has not utilized this long term capital gain for the purchase of new assets and not eligible for claim of deduction under section 54 of the act. Aggrieved, assessee preferred the appeal before

DCIT CENT. CIR. -4(1), CENTRAL RANGE-4, MUMBAI vs. M/S. RUNWAL DEVELOPERS P. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sood

section 24(1) on account of repairs and accordingly, sum of Rs.3,75,15,126/- was offered as taxable income. The AO observed that the assessee, while computing its income from business has failed to apportion and disallow expenses debited to the profit and loss account which can be attributable to rental income earned by it. Since the assessee

RUNWAL DEVELOPEMENT P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 23, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No 4824/Mum/2014 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

section 24(1) on account of repairs and accordingly, sum of Rs.3,75,15,126/- was offered as taxable income. The AO observed that the assessee, while computing its income from business has failed to apportion and disallow expenses debited to the profit and loss account which can be attributable to rental income earned by it. Since the assessee