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

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

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 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 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. 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

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

BERMACO ENERGY SYSTEMS LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 47, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal for A

256 ITR 360, decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Aravali Trading Co., 220 CTR 622, decision of Hon. High Court of Gauhati in the case of Nemi Chand Kothari vs. CIT [2004] 264 ITR 254. 12. In support of the proposition reliance was placed on the decision of Hon. Delhi High court in the case

BERMACO ENERGY SYSTEMS LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 47, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal for A

256 ITR 360, decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Aravali Trading Co., 220 CTR 622, decision of Hon. High Court of Gauhati in the case of Nemi Chand Kothari vs. CIT [2004] 264 ITR 254. 12. In support of the proposition reliance was placed on the decision of Hon. Delhi High court in the case

BERMACO ENERGY SYSTEMS LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 47, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal for A

256 ITR 360, decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Aravali Trading Co., 220 CTR 622, decision of Hon. High Court of Gauhati in the case of Nemi Chand Kothari vs. CIT [2004] 264 ITR 254. 12. In support of the proposition reliance was placed on the decision of Hon. Delhi High court in the case

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