THE J.K. TRUST BOMBAY,MUMBAI vs. CIT (E), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S The J. K. Trust Cit (Exemption) Bombay, R. No.617, 6Th Floor, बनाम/ New Hind House, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Narottam Morrjee Marg, Lalbaug, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400001

House, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Narottam Morrjee Marg, Lalbaug, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400001 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) PAN. No. AAATT0611L "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Shri Rakesh Mohan राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue by Shri C.S. Gulati-CIT-DR 10/07/2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 25/07/2018 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date

SANE & DOSHI ENTERPARISES,MUMBAI vs. JT CIT 17(3), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

house property" or it would be chargeable under the head "Profits and gains from business or profession", is the question. It may be mentioned, in the first instance, that merely because there is an entry in the object clause of the business showing a particular object, would not be the determinative factor to arrive at a conclusion that the income

TATA SONS PRIVATE LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR.CIT-2, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Tata Sons Pvt. Ltd., Pr. Cit 2, 24, Bombay House, Room No.552, Homi Mody Street, Vs. 5Th Floor, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 Aayakar Bhavan, Pan: Aaact4060A M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwala, A.R. Ms. Arati Vissanji, A.R. Revenue By : Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.04.2020 O R D E R

Housing Finance Ltd (367 ITR 458) (Bom HC). 10. It is submitted that recently, in Assessee's own case for AY 2012-13 (ITA No 1213/Mum/2018), the Mumbai Tribunal has quashed the order passed by the Commissioner under Section 263 of the Act by observing that since the AO has considered the same issue during the original assessment proceedings

AMAZIA DEVELOPERS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT-1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

house property’. Aggrieved by the order of learned Pr. Commissioner the assessee has filed present appeal before this Tribunal by raising the various ground of appeal as referred below. (1) The order passed by learned Commissioner of income tax under section 263

BARCLAYS BANK PLC,MUMBAI vs. CIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-RANGE-1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

Properties v. Director of Income-tax [1996] 57 lTD 328 (Bombay,) wherein the Tribunal upheld the argument of the assessee that when an order is passed by the Assessing Officer pursuant to the directions of a superior authority, the same could not be the subject matter of revision under section 263 of the Act. 1.6. The appellant submits that

RATAN TATA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. CIT (E), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

house property', in respect of which there was a sharp divergence of opinion amongst the High Courts, was clarificatory Assessment year: 2014-15 Page 21 of 43 and declaratory in nature and consequently retrospective. Similarly, in Brij Mohan Das Laxman Dasv. C/T(1997] 223 ITR 825/90 Taxman 41 (SC), explanation 2 added to section 40 of the Act was held

J.R.D TATA TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. CIT (E), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

house property', in respect of which there was a sharp divergence of opinion amongst the High Courts, was clarificatory Assessment year: 2014-15 Page 21 of 43 and declaratory in nature and consequently retrospective. Similarly, in Brij Mohan Das Laxman Dasv. C/T(1997] 223 ITR 825/90 Taxman 41 (SC), explanation 2 added to section 40 of the Act was held

M/S ARENA ENTERPRISES ,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 41(4)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for stati...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

263 of the Act. M/s Arena Enterprises Nos. 6321 & 6322/MUM/2024 2.2 The Assessing Officer accordingly noticed that assessee was in The Assessing Officer accordingly noticed that assessee was in The Assessing Officer accordingly noticed that assessee was in the business of development of the property and of development of the property and of development of the property and constructs

M/S ARENA ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD, 41(4)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for stati...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

263 of the Act. M/s Arena Enterprises Nos. 6321 & 6322/MUM/2024 2.2 The Assessing Officer accordingly noticed that assessee was in The Assessing Officer accordingly noticed that assessee was in The Assessing Officer accordingly noticed that assessee was in the business of development of the property and of development of the property and of development of the property and constructs

ACC LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT(LTU), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Housing Projects, [2012] 343 ITR 329 (Del.); vii) CIT v/s Vodafone Essar South Ltd., [2013] 212 Taxman 184 (Del.); viii) Khatiza S. Oomerbhoy v/s ITO, [2006] 100 ITD 173 (Mum.); and ix) Narayan Tatu Rane v/s ITO, [2-016] 70 taxmann.com 227 (Mum.). 17. The leaned Counsel for the assessee submitted, in assessee’s own case, learned Commissioner (Appeals

JANATA INDUSTRIES,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 21, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalm/S. Janata Industries 162, Janata Compound Tulsi Pipe Road, Senapati Bapat Marg ……………. Appellant Lower Parel, Mumbai 400 013 Pan – Aaafj4875E V/S Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Circle–21, Mumbai M/S. Janata Industries 162, Janata Compound Tulsi Pipe Road, Senapati Bapat Marg ……………. Appellant Lower Parel, Mumbai 400 013 Pan – Aaafj4875E V/S Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Circle–21, Mumbai

section 263 of the Act observed that, though, the assessee has claimed depreciation on a building which is let out and rent received from which has been offered as income from house property

CRICKET CLUB OF INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT 1, MUMBAI

Accordingly, concise Ground No. 1 raised by the Appellant in appeal for the Assessment Year 2012-13 is allowed while all the other grounds raised by the Appellant are dismissed as being infructuous

Section 263 of the Act vide order dated 15/07/2022. During the assessment proceedings, the Appellant had filed revised 12. return for the Assessment Year 2011-12 on 30/03/2013. As per the revised computation of total income placed on record, the Appellant had offered to tax income for House Property

UPAL DEVELOPERS P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT-8, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the asses

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Upal Developers Private Limited, Principal Commissioner Of Market City Resources Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax-8, Second Floor, R.R. Hosiery Bldg. Vs. Mumbai. Shree Laxmi Woolen Mills Estate, Mumbai-400011. Pan No. Aaacu 7953 K Appellant Respondent

Section 263 of the Act thereby assuming jurisdiction under the said provisions. The Hon'ble assuming jurisdiction under the said provisions. The Hon'ble assuming jurisdiction under the said provisions. The Hon'ble PCIT further erred in holding that the assessment completed in PCIT further erred in holding that the assessment completed in PCIT further erred in holding that

HUMUZA CONSULTANTS,MUMBAI vs. THE PR. CIT-19, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the stay application filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Humuza Consultants Vs The Principal Commissioner Of 6Th Floor, Wokhardt Towers Income-Tax-19, Mumbai Bandra Kurla Complex Room No. 228, 2Nd Floor, Bandra East Matru Mandir Mumbai-400 01 Tardeo Road, Pan : Aahfh9240E Mumbai-400 007 Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Jd Mistry & Hiten Chande Respondent By Shri K.K. Mishra (Cit,Dr) Date Of Hearing 07-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement 07-01-2022 O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi (Am):

Property Act does not prohibit the gift by the companies and (3) Further, the Income-tax Act itself recognizes such transactions under the provisions of section 56(2) of the Act. He, therefore, submitted that the transactions entered into by the assessee is in order and cannot be challenged. b. Further, coming to the provisions of section 263

INDIABULLS COMMERCIAL CREDIT LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), MUMBAI-3, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

property during the\nyear under consideration please submit the reason why\nproperty sold below the value determined by the Sub\nRegistrar. The copies of the same has to be filed and\nalso submit the total calculation of Purchase and Sold of\nProperty.\n6. The assessee has claimed large deduction under chapter\nVI-A (excluding deduction claimed

AFCONS INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT -(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2010-11

House, Room No.330, Vs. Shah Industrial Estate, Aayakar Bhavan, 3rd Floor, Veera Desai West, Mumbai – 400 053 M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 PAN: AAACA9067G (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Sujit Ghosh, A.R. Revenue by : Ms. Shailja Rai, D.R. Date of Hearing : 17 . 01 . 2022 Date of Pronouncement : 29 .03 . 2022 O R D E R Per : Kuldip Singh, Judicial

INDOKEM LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT CR 6, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed

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

house property and there could not have been any further additions. 18. Since the provisions of fixation of annual rent under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act are pari materia of Section 23 of the Act, we are inclined to accept the aforesaid view of the Calcutta High Court in Satya Co. Ltd. (supra) that in such circumstances, the annual value

INDOKEM LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT CR 6, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed

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

house property and there could not have been any further additions. 18. Since the provisions of fixation of annual rent under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act are pari materia of Section 23 of the Act, we are inclined to accept the aforesaid view of the Calcutta High Court in Satya Co. Ltd. (supra) that in such circumstances, the annual value

INDOKEM LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT CIR 6, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed

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

house property and there could not have been any further additions. 18. Since the provisions of fixation of annual rent under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act are pari materia of Section 23 of the Act, we are inclined to accept the aforesaid view of the Calcutta High Court in Satya Co. Ltd. (supra) that in such circumstances, the annual value