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

THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 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

256 pages, 257 pages and 264 pages respectively which would be considered in terms of rule 18(6) of ITAT Rules, 1963. ITA no.707,708, 714–717, & 719/Mum/2021 Pirya Mohan Gurnani. A.Ys. 10–11 to 16–17 055. With respect to ground number 1 of the appeal for assessment year 11-12, 12-13 and 13-14, we find that

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

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

256 pages, 257 pages and 264 pages respectively which would be considered in terms of rule 18(6) of ITAT Rules, 1963. ITA no.707,708, 714–717, & 719/Mum/2021 Pirya Mohan Gurnani. A.Ys. 10–11 to 16–17 055. With respect to ground number 1 of the appeal for assessment year 11-12, 12-13 and 13-14, we find that

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

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

256 pages, 257 pages and 264 pages respectively which would be considered in terms of rule 18(6) of ITAT Rules, 1963. ITA no.707,708, 714–717, & 719/Mum/2021 Pirya Mohan Gurnani. A.Ys. 10–11 to 16–17 055. With respect to ground number 1 of the appeal for assessment year 11-12, 12-13 and 13-14, we find that

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

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

256 pages, 257 pages and 264 pages respectively which would be considered in terms of rule 18(6) of ITAT Rules, 1963. ITA no.707,708, 714–717, & 719/Mum/2021 Pirya Mohan Gurnani. A.Ys. 10–11 to 16–17 055. With respect to ground number 1 of the appeal for assessment year 11-12, 12-13 and 13-14, we find that

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

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

256 pages, 257 pages and 264 pages respectively which would be considered in terms of rule 18(6) of ITAT Rules, 1963. ITA no.707,708, 714–717, & 719/Mum/2021 Pirya Mohan Gurnani. A.Ys. 10–11 to 16–17 055. With respect to ground number 1 of the appeal for assessment year 11-12, 12-13 and 13-14, we find that

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

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

256 pages, 257 pages and 264 pages respectively which would be considered in terms of rule 18(6) of ITAT Rules, 1963. ITA no.707,708, 714–717, & 719/Mum/2021 Pirya Mohan Gurnani. A.Ys. 10–11 to 16–17 055. With respect to ground number 1 of the appeal for assessment year 11-12, 12-13 and 13-14, we find that

HOUSING DEVP. FIN.CORPN. LTD. vs. THE ADIT CIR. 1(1),

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

property by its owner. In the given\ncase, the deployment of funds in short term investment is part and parcel of\nhousing finance business of the assessee since the idle funds are available in the\nregular course of business of housing finance and as part of the business activity\nthe assessee keeps these funds in short term investments which earn

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

property by its owner. In the given\ncase, the deployment of funds in short term investment is part and parcel of\nhousing finance business of the assessee since the idle funds are available in\nthe regular course of business of housing finance and as part of the business\nactivity the assessee keeps these funds in short term investments which earn

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

In the result, the three appeals by the Revenue are partly\nallowed

property by its owner. In the given\ncase, the deployment of funds in short term investment is part and parcel of\nhousing finance business of the assessee since the idle funds are available in\nthe regular course of business of housing finance and as part of the business\nactivity the assessee keeps these funds in short term investments which earn

THE DY CIT CIR 1(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPN LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the three appeals by the Revenue are partly\nallowed

property by its owner. In the given\ncase, the deployment of funds in short term investment is part and parcel of\nhousing finance business of the assessee since the idle funds are available in\nthe regular course of business of housing finance and as part of the business\nactivity the assessee keeps these funds in short term investments which earn

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