VAIJANTHI MAHAVIR OZA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(IT)-3(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5799/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) बिाम/ Vaijanthi Mahavir Oza, Income Tax Officer- C/O. Chhajed & Doshi, (International Taxation)- 101, Hubtown Solaris, 3(3)(1) V. N.S Phadke Marg, Room No. 1628, Near East West Flyover, 16Th Floor Andheri (E), Air India Building Mumbai- 400069 Mumbai स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Abepo5631J (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Piyush Chhajjed Revenue By: Miss. Deepika Arora (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 09.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.04.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 5799/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 23.06.2017, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-57, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2014-15, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 23.12.2016 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2014-15. I.T.A. No.5799/Mum/2017

iii) It needs to be mentioned here that in case of section 54(1), the amendment has been inserted by the same Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 with effect from 01.04.2015 and it has been shown above in para 7 that if it is not given clarificatory nature in case of a non-resident (even otherwise, the words 'in India

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)

Section 23(1)(c) of the Act. 46. Similar addition has also been made by the AO in the assessment year 2010-11 amounting to Rs.28,84,560/-. Following the reasoning given by us for assessment year 2009-2010 hereinabove we do not find any justification for the addition so made on account of deemed rent. Accordingly AO is directed

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)

Section 23(1)(c) of the Act. 46. Similar addition has also been made by the AO in the assessment year 2010-11 amounting to Rs.28,84,560/-. Following the reasoning given by us for assessment year 2009-2010 hereinabove we do not find any justification for the addition so made on account of deemed rent. Accordingly AO is directed

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)

Section 23(1)(c) of the Act. 46. Similar addition has also been made by the AO in the assessment year 2010-11 amounting to Rs.28,84,560/-. Following the reasoning given by us for assessment year 2009-2010 hereinabove we do not find any justification for the addition so made on account of deemed rent. Accordingly AO is directed

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)

Section 23(1)(c) of the Act. 46. Similar addition has also been made by the AO in the assessment year 2010-11 amounting to Rs.28,84,560/-. Following the reasoning given by us for assessment year 2009-2010 hereinabove we do not find any justification for the addition so made on account of deemed rent. Accordingly AO is directed

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)

Section 23(1)(c) of the Act. 46. Similar addition has also been made by the AO in the assessment year 2010-11 amounting to Rs.28,84,560/-. Following the reasoning given by us for assessment year 2009-2010 hereinabove we do not find any justification for the addition so made on account of deemed rent. Accordingly AO is directed

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)

Section 23(1)(c) of the Act. 46. Similar addition has also been made by the AO in the assessment year 2010-11 amounting to Rs.28,84,560/-. Following the reasoning given by us for assessment year 2009-2010 hereinabove we do not find any justification for the addition so made on account of deemed rent. Accordingly AO is directed

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)

Section 23(1)(c) of the Act. 46. Similar addition has also been made by the AO in the assessment year 2010-11 amounting to Rs.28,84,560/-. Following the reasoning given by us for assessment year 2009-2010 hereinabove we do not find any justification for the addition so made on account of deemed rent. Accordingly AO is directed

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)

Section 23(1)(c) of the Act. 46. Similar addition has also been made by the AO in the assessment year 2010-11 amounting to Rs.28,84,560/-. Following the reasoning given by us for assessment year 2009-2010 hereinabove we do not find any justification for the addition so made on account of deemed rent. Accordingly AO is directed

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)

Section 23(1)(c) of the Act. 46. Similar addition has also been made by the AO in the assessment year 2010-11 amounting to Rs.28,84,560/-. Following the reasoning given by us for assessment year 2009-2010 hereinabove we do not find any justification for the addition so made on account of deemed rent. Accordingly AO is directed

INCOME TAX OFFICER-25(3)(5), MUMBAI vs. NILIMA ABHIJIT TANNU, MUMBAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri G. Manjunatha, Am

iii) From joint reading of the entire sub section 4 of section 54F, the legislature has prescribed due date for utilization of sale consideration is as provided under section 139 of ITA, Now, as per provisions of section 139(4) of the ITA, the due date is one year from end of the relevant assessment year, in this case being

KAMAT HOTELS (INDIA) LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

26,33,040/- made under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act on the ground that the Assessee had failed to establish commercial expediency in respect of loans granted to its wholly owned subsidiaries. Thus, the CIT(A) partly allowed appeal preferred by the Assessee vide order, dated 08/02/2024, which has been impugned by way of the present cross-appeals

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 2(1)(3), MUMBAI vs. KAMAT HOTELS INDIA LIMITED, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

26,33,040/- made under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act on the ground that the Assessee had failed to establish commercial expediency in respect of loans granted to its wholly owned subsidiaries. Thus, the CIT(A) partly allowed appeal preferred by the Assessee vide order, dated 08/02/2024, which has been impugned by way of the present cross-appeals

KAMAT HOTELS (INDIA) LIMITED,VILE PARLE MUMBAI vs. ACIT, MUMBAI MAHARASHTRA

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

26,33,040/- made under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act on the ground that the Assessee had failed to establish commercial expediency in respect of loans granted to its wholly owned subsidiaries. Thus, the CIT(A) partly allowed appeal preferred by the Assessee vide order, dated 08/02/2024, which has been impugned by way of the present cross-appeals

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

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

ACIT 28 (2), MUMBAI vs. SMT. PUNITA SANJAY BIDRA , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Acit-28(2), Smt. Punita Sanjay Bindra, Room No. 307, 3Rd Floor, Tower 505-506, Kesar Solitaire, 5Th Vs. No. 6, Vashi Railway Station Floor, Sanpada, Plot No. 5, Complex, Vashi, Sector-19, Navi Mumbai-400703. Navi Mumbai-400705. Pan No. Acspb 2454 M Appellant Respondent

26,55,132 5.2 For ready reference For ready reference, the relevant provisions of section 54F he relevant provisions of section 54F are reproduced as under: reproduced as under: “54F. Capital gain on transfer of certain. capital assets not to Capital gain on transfer of certain. capital assets not to Capital gain on transfer of certain. capital assets

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

iii) of the Rules." 8. Thereafter, in the case of PCIT vs. PNB Housing Finance Ltd.(supra) the Hon'ble Delhi High Court again following the decision rendered in the case Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT(supra) and the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of South Indian Bank Ltd. (supra) held that no disallowance