H & M HOUSING FINANCE AND LEASING PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, ground No. 1 and 2 of the assessee‟s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanassessment Year : 2017-18 H&M Housing Finance & Deputy Commissioner Of Leasing Private Limited, Income Tax, C/62, 9Th Floor, Vibgyor Towers, Vs. Circle–7(1)(2), Bandra Kurla Complex, Aayakar Bhavan, Bandra (East), M.K.Road, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400020. Pan : Aabch4398E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nitesh Joshi & Shri Nishith Khatri Revenue By : Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr.Dr

section 9 and taxed accordingly”. This judgment, supported by earlier cases like United 7 Commercial Bank Ltd. vs. CIT (32 ITR 688) and others, and aligns with rulings from House of Lords in the case of Fry v. Salisbury House Estates Co. Ltd. (1930) AC 432 and Hon‟ble Calcutta High Court in Commercial Properties Limited

DIRECTI INTERNET SOLUTIONS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 5(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

house property’ and not under the head ‘profit and gains or b ‘profit and gains or business or profession’. Accordingly, usiness or profession’. Accordingly, the depreciation on corresponding part of building on corresponding part of building claimed claimed by the assessee is also liable to be disallowed under the head ‘profit and is also liable to be disallowed under

DIRECTI INTERNET SOLUTIONS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 5(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

house property’ and not under the head ‘profit and gains or b ‘profit and gains or business or profession’. Accordingly, usiness or profession’. Accordingly, the depreciation on corresponding part of building on corresponding part of building claimed claimed by the assessee is also liable to be disallowed under the head ‘profit and is also liable to be disallowed under

ISLAND STAR MALL DEVELOPES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI SUBURBAN vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 6(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section under which order Date of order is passed 1 2016-17 143(3) 26.12.2018 2 2017-18 143(3) 21.12.2019 3 2018-19 143(3) 21.06.2021 4 2019-20 143(1) 28.03.2021 5 2020-21 143(3) 22.09.2022 6 2021-22 143(1) 07.03.2023 We considering the facts, circumstances and submissions as discussed in the above paragraphs observe that

ISLAND STAR MALL DEVELOPES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 6(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section under which order Date of order is passed 1 2016-17 143(3) 26.12.2018 2 2017-18 143(3) 21.12.2019 3 2018-19 143(3) 21.06.2021 4 2019-20 143(1) 28.03.2021 5 2020-21 143(3) 22.09.2022 6 2021-22 143(1) 07.03.2023 We considering the facts, circumstances and submissions as discussed in the above paragraphs observe that

ISLAND STAR MALL DEVELOPES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI SUBURBAN vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 6(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section under which order Date of order is passed 1 2016-17 143(3) 26.12.2018 2 2017-18 143(3) 21.12.2019 3 2018-19 143(3) 21.06.2021 4 2019-20 143(1) 28.03.2021 5 2020-21 143(3) 22.09.2022 6 2021-22 143(1) 07.03.2023 We considering the facts, circumstances and submissions as discussed in the above paragraphs observe that

ISLAND STAR MALL DEVELOPES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 6(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section under which order Date of order is passed 1 2016-17 143(3) 26.12.2018 2 2017-18 143(3) 21.12.2019 3 2018-19 143(3) 21.06.2021 4 2019-20 143(1) 28.03.2021 5 2020-21 143(3) 22.09.2022 6 2021-22 143(1) 07.03.2023 We considering the facts, circumstances and submissions as discussed in the above paragraphs observe that

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 6(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S ISLAND STAR MALL DEVELOPERS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section under which order Date of order is passed 1 2016-17 143(3) 26.12.2018 2 2017-18 143(3) 21.12.2019 3 2018-19 143(3) 21.06.2021 4 2019-20 143(1) 28.03.2021 5 2020-21 143(3) 22.09.2022 6 2021-22 143(1) 07.03.2023 We considering the facts, circumstances and submissions as discussed in the above paragraphs observe that

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 6(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S ISLAND STAR MALL DEVELOPERS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section under which order Date of order is passed 1 2016-17 143(3) 26.12.2018 2 2017-18 143(3) 21.12.2019 3 2018-19 143(3) 21.06.2021 4 2019-20 143(1) 28.03.2021 5 2020-21 143(3) 22.09.2022 6 2021-22 143(1) 07.03.2023 We considering the facts, circumstances and submissions as discussed in the above paragraphs observe that

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 6(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S ISLAND STAR MALL DEVELOPERS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section under which order Date of order is passed 1 2016-17 143(3) 26.12.2018 2 2017-18 143(3) 21.12.2019 3 2018-19 143(3) 21.06.2021 4 2019-20 143(1) 28.03.2021 5 2020-21 143(3) 22.09.2022 6 2021-22 143(1) 07.03.2023 We considering the facts, circumstances and submissions as discussed in the above paragraphs observe that

CHERYL OSCAR PEREIRA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 13(1)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal

property. There is no dispute raised by the revenue related to other contention for claiming of exemption under section 54F. But only the issue is with purchasing of single house is related to denial of exemption under section 54 and partial denial of exemption under section 54F. Considering both the sequence, there are no restrictions for purchasing a single unit

ACIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. GENTEX MERCHANTS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

Appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

house property"." 25. Section 23 of the Act lays down as to how the annual value has to be determined. The relevant portion of section 23 is as follows :- "23. (1) For the purposes of section 22, the annual value of any property shall be deemed to be-- (a) the sum for which the property might reasonably be expected

FAROOQ ABDULLA MERCHANT,MUMBAI vs. ITO 23 (1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, Ground No. V raised by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Blefarooq Abdulla Merchant V. Income Tax Officer- Ward – 23(1)(4) Matru Mandir, Tardev Road A-1401, Poseidon Tower Mumbai – 400 007 Versova, Yari Road Above Indian Bank, Versova Andheri (W), Mumbai - 400061 Pan: Ahupm7426K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vimal Punamiya Department Represented By : Smt. Vranda U. Matkarni

house' and, accordingly, assessee was entitled to benefit conferred under section 54(1) - Held, yes" Ground No. 2 Disallowance of ₹.13,00,000/- being the litigation expenses incurred in respect of the sale of disputed property  On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the CIT(A) erred in disallowing

MANOJ TEKRIWAL,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 24(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

property is considered, it would continue to be owned by co-owners. Joint ownership is different from absolute ownership. In the Manoj Tekriwal ITA No.4147/Mum./2015 case of residential unit, none of the co-owners can claim that he is the owner of residential house. Ownership of a residential house, in our opinion, means ownership to the exclusion

KENNETH M. MISQUITTA ,MUMBAI vs. ITO, 25(2)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

26 as clearly mentioned in the said section, which relate to computation of income from house property. Therefore, argument of deemed

TODI INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 8(3)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

26 If the intention is to exploit commercial property by putting up\nconstruction and letting it out for the purpose of getting rental\nincome. then notwithstanding the fact that the furniture and\nfittings are provided to the lessee, the income from the building fall\nunder the head income from house property But if the assessee is\nin the business

KANAKIA GRUHNIRMAN PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-10(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blekanakia Gruhnirman Pvt. Ltd., V. Dcit – 10(1)(2) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Kanakia Future City, Cts No. 101 Behind Dr. L. H. Hiranandani Hospital Mumbai - 400020 Near Ayyappa Temple, Tirandaz Powai, Mumbai – 400076 Pan: Aaack1572C (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 24 as the same 10 wherein partly completed being capitalized to building was given on rental investment towards property. basis whereas during the year Accordingly, rental income is under consideration taxed under the head completed building is 'Income from Other Sources given on rental basis. On the basis of the above, we request your honour to treat the rental

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

26,656/- under the head “income from house property” in respect of vacant units of a commercial mall during the year pursuant to provisions contained in section