ITO 16(1)(4), MUMBAI vs. SHASHANKA GHOSH, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer-16(1)(4), Vs Shri Shashanka Ghosh, Room No.438, 4Th Floor, C-701, Jay Bharat Chs Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Off. Yari Road,Near Amarnath M. K. Road, Tower, Varsova Andher (West), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400061 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Acwpg5915E

houses 15 Shri Shashanka Ghosh were purchases by the assessee and was not independent properties and the builders made effected modifications in the flat and made it one unit by opening the door in between two apartments in that situation a particular decision was taken. 2.8. We further note that Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs Gita Duggal

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD ( CORPORATE FINANCE DIVISION),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 6(3), MUMBAI

Bench: the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal preferred by the Assessee vide order, dated 18/05/2009. 4. Not being satisfied with the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A), the Assessee has preferred appeal before this Tribunal. The Revenue has also filed cross-appeal challenging the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A).

house property excluding the portions occupied by the Assessee for the purpose of business or profession can be computed. However, the Revenue has failed to point out corresponding provision providing for Assessment Years: 2006-2007 computation of depreciation and WDV of Block of Assets excluding the WDV of the asset let out during the relevant previous year. 7.8. We note

M/S. ISMAIL ABDULKARIM BALWA,MUMBAI vs. THE DCIT RG 24(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, as above

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singh: (A.Y : 2005-06) Mr. Ismail Abdulkarim Balwa Vs. Dcit, Range-24(3), Mumbai A.K. Industrial Estate, (Respondent) Opp. A.K. Tower, S.V. Road, Goregaon (West), Mumbai - 62 Pan : Aabpb7570M (Appellant) : (A.Y : 2005-06) Mr. Hussein Abdulkarim Balwa Vs. Dcit, Range-24(3), Mumbai A.K. Industrial Estate, (Respondent) Opp. A.K. Tower, S.V. Road, Goregaon (West), Mumbai - 62 Pan : Aabpb7572K (Appellant)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). 2. Initially, the said appeals were decided by the Tribunal vide its order dated 6.7.2012, and giving effect to the orders of the Division Bench and the Third Member, the appeals of the assessees were partly allowed. Aggrieved, the assessees preferred appeals before the Hon’ble Bombay

ACIT CC 25, MUMBAI vs. PARLE BOTTLING P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year- 1998-99 Acit, M/S Parle Bottling Pvt. Ltd. Cc-25, Room No.404, Western Express Highway, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Chakala, Andheri (East), Vs. M.K.Road, Mumbai-4000099 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacp8417H Shri Arvind Kumar-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Firoze Ahdhyarajina

260A of the Act has been filed by the Department before the Hon’ble High Court against deleting the quantum addition by the Tribunal. The ld. counsel for the assessee defended the conclusion arrived at in the impugned order and submitted the copy of the order as per which the quantum addition was deleted (ITA No.877/Mum/2003). This factual matrix

WADHWA & ASSOCIATES REALTORS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 9(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: D.T. Garasia & Shri N. K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Wadhwa & Associates Asst. Commissioner Of Income Realtors Private Limited Tax 9(3) 301, 3Rd Floor, Platina, Mumbai. Plot C-59, G Block, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai - 400051 Pan:Aaacw5273G (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Jitendra Jain, Advocate & Shri Mahesh O. Rajora, Ca Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Patankar Date Of Hearing : 29.01.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.02.2018 O R D E R

House Property" for A.Y. 2012-13 amounting to Rs. 30.11 Cr. 11. The Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) denied the aforesaid set off by invoking the provisions of section 79 of the Act and holding that since 51% shareholding as on 31st March 2009, 31st March 2010 and 31st March 2012 is not with the same persons, the loss

ITO TDS 3 (1)(1), MUMBAI vs. RAYMOND HOMI KERMANI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2011-12 Ito Tds 3(1)(1) Ms. Raymond Homi Kermani, R.No.139, 1St Floor, बनाम/ Arvind Sangave & Co. Scindia House, Ballard 37-4/, Shaviri Premises Chs Vs. Pier, N.M. Road, Ltd., Mumbai-38 R.S. Sapre Marge, Princes Street, Mumbai-400002 (Revenue) (Respondent) P.A. No. Aappk3340Q Revenue By Shri B.S. Bist (Sr. Dr) Respondent By Shri R.K. Kotain (Ar)

House, Ballard 37-4/, Shaviri Premises Chs Vs. Pier, N.M. Road, Ltd., Mumbai-38 R.S. Sapre Marge, Princes Street, Mumbai-400002 (Revenue) (Respondent) P.A. No. AAPPK3340Q Revenue by Shri B.S. Bist (Sr. DR) Respondent by Shri R.K. Kotain (AR) सुनवाई क" तार"ख / 26/09/2016 Date of Hearing : 30/09/2016 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date of Order: आदेश

RAVI KANT HUF,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 23(4), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Ravi Kant Huf, Income Tax Officer, Mohanlal Jain &Co., Ward-23(4), बनाम/ Chartered Accountant, Mumbai Vs. 10, Chartered House, Gr. Floor, Dr.C.H. Street, Marine Lines, Mumbai-400002 ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aabhr0354M

house property on 18/02/2008 and the last date of utilization of the amount was 31/03/2008. The assessee did not utilized the money and the capital gain amount of Rs.60 lakh was to be deposited on or before 31/03/2009, which is the last date of utilization. It was contended that the assessee deposited the amount on 17/11/2008. It was submitted that

SETH PROPERTIES,MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(1)(3), MUMBAI

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

house property' as income of the previous year in which it is received, whether the assessee continues to remain the owner of such property in the previous year in which arrears are received or not. (deduction of 30% would also be allowable against such receipt). In the present case since the appellant has not received any amount either

DCIT 22(2), NAVI MUMBAI vs. RAJESH BUILDERS, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

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

260A of the Act. This effect is deliberated by CIT(A) in his order vide Para 3.1 to 3.3 which reads as under: - “3.1 In this case the Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai's order in this very assessment year is available wherein Hon'ble authority has decided that the income has to be assessed as capital gain despite the fact

RAJESH BUILDER,MUMBAI vs. CIT 22, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

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

260A of the Act. This effect is deliberated by CIT(A) in his order vide Para 3.1 to 3.3 which reads as under: - “3.1 In this case the Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai's order in this very assessment year is available wherein Hon'ble authority has decided that the income has to be assessed as capital gain despite the fact

RAJESH BUILDER,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 22(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

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

260A of the Act. This effect is deliberated by CIT(A) in his order vide Para 3.1 to 3.3 which reads as under: - “3.1 In this case the Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai's order in this very assessment year is available wherein Hon'ble authority has decided that the income has to be assessed as capital gain despite the fact

DCIT 5(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. ESSAR PROPERTIES LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 D C I T – 5(1)(2) M/S. Essar Properties Ltd. Room No. 568, 5Th Floor Essar House, 11, K.K. Marg बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan Mahalaxmi, Mumbai 400034 Vs. Mumbai 400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aaace0893Q

house property’. It is noted that the Tribunal in the case of assessee itself for Assessment 6 M/s. Essar Properties Ltd. year 2007-08, following the decision of Assessment year 2006-07 decided the issue in hand to treat the ‘rental income’ as ‘business income’. Before us the learned representatives from both sides fairly agreed that the impugned issue

ACIT 17(1), MUMBAI vs. ELVE CORPORATION, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Panaji Bench, dated 11th December, 2005, passed in Income Tax Appeal Nos. 240/PN/2004 and 273/PN/2004. The Assessment Year is 1999-2000. 4. The assessee-respondent before this Court is a company engaged in the business of mining and export of processed

ACIT 17(1), MUMBAI vs. ELVE CORPORATION, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Panaji Bench, dated 11th December, 2005, passed in Income Tax Appeal Nos. 240/PN/2004 and 273/PN/2004. The Assessment Year is 1999-2000. 4. The assessee-respondent before this Court is a company engaged in the business of mining and export of processed

ASST CIT CC 24 & 26 CEN RG 5, MUMBAI vs. SAMIR NARAIN BHOJWANI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the four appeals of Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Ashwani Taneja, Am

house property was assessed as rental income and accordingly, the assessment was made. Now, the learned Counsel for the assessee stated that there is no incriminating material and qua the same Revenue has filed a letter from AO i.e. the DCIT center circle 3(4), Mumbai vide letter No. DCIT CC-3(4)/Revised form No. 36/2016-17 dated

ASST CIT CC 24 & 26 CEN RG 5, MUMBAI vs. SAMIR NARAIN BHOJWANI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the four appeals of Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Ashwani Taneja, Am

house property was assessed as rental income and accordingly, the assessment was made. Now, the learned Counsel for the assessee stated that there is no incriminating material and qua the same Revenue has filed a letter from AO i.e. the DCIT center circle 3(4), Mumbai vide letter No. DCIT CC-3(4)/Revised form No. 36/2016-17 dated

ACIT CC 24 & 26, MUMBAI vs. SAMIR NARAIN BHOJWANI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the four appeals of Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Ashwani Taneja, Am

house property was assessed as rental income and accordingly, the assessment was made. Now, the learned Counsel for the assessee stated that there is no incriminating material and qua the same Revenue has filed a letter from AO i.e. the DCIT center circle 3(4), Mumbai vide letter No. DCIT CC-3(4)/Revised form No. 36/2016-17 dated

ASST CIT CC 24 & 26 CEN RG 5, MUMBAI vs. SAMIR NARAIN BHOJWANI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the four appeals of Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Ashwani Taneja, Am

house property was assessed as rental income and accordingly, the assessment was made. Now, the learned Counsel for the assessee stated that there is no incriminating material and qua the same Revenue has filed a letter from AO i.e. the DCIT center circle 3(4), Mumbai vide letter No. DCIT CC-3(4)/Revised form No. 36/2016-17 dated