S.P. CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. A.C.I.T.RG.11(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the Assessment Years

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

269] submitted that in this decision it was observed by the Tribunal that Assessing Officer had not made any enquiry while computing the income in accordance with Section 22 and 23 of the Act rather computed the ALV based on notional rent on cost of property i.e. 10% of the book value of the property was considered

ACIT 11(1), MUMBAI vs. S.P. CORPORATION, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the Assessment Years

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

269] submitted that in this decision it was observed by the Tribunal that Assessing Officer had not made any enquiry while computing the income in accordance with Section 22 and 23 of the Act rather computed the ALV based on notional rent on cost of property i.e. 10% of the book value of the property was considered

S.P. CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. A.C.I.T. RG. 11(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the Assessment Years

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

269] submitted that in this decision it was observed by the Tribunal that Assessing Officer had not made any enquiry while computing the income in accordance with Section 22 and 23 of the Act rather computed the ALV based on notional rent on cost of property i.e. 10% of the book value of the property was considered

S.P CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. ACIT RG 11(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the Assessment Years

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

269] submitted that in this decision it was observed by the Tribunal that Assessing Officer had not made any enquiry while computing the income in accordance with Section 22 and 23 of the Act rather computed the ALV based on notional rent on cost of property i.e. 10% of the book value of the property was considered

S.P CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. ACIT RG 11(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the Assessment Years

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

269] submitted that in this decision it was observed by the Tribunal that Assessing Officer had not made any enquiry while computing the income in accordance with Section 22 and 23 of the Act rather computed the ALV based on notional rent on cost of property i.e. 10% of the book value of the property was considered

S.P CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. ACIT RG 11(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the Assessment Years

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

269] submitted that in this decision it was observed by the Tribunal that Assessing Officer had not made any enquiry while computing the income in accordance with Section 22 and 23 of the Act rather computed the ALV based on notional rent on cost of property i.e. 10% of the book value of the property was considered

S.P. CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG 11(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the Assessment Years

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

269] submitted that in this decision it was observed by the Tribunal that Assessing Officer had not made any enquiry while computing the income in accordance with Section 22 and 23 of the Act rather computed the ALV based on notional rent on cost of property i.e. 10% of the book value of the property was considered

ADDL CIT RG 7(1), MUMBAI vs. PIRAMAL ENTERPRISES LTD (FORMERLY KNWON AS PIRAMAL HEALTHCARE LTD) (AS ULTIMATE SUCCESSOR TO NICHOLAS PIRAMAL INDIA LTD), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Piramal Enterprises Dy. Commissioner Of Limited (Formerly Known Income Tax, As Piramal Healthcare Range-8(2)(1), Limited) (Earlier Known As Mumbai. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd.), Vs. Piramal Tower, Agastya Corporate Park, Lbs Marg, Kamani Junction, Kurla (West), Mumbai – 400 070 Pan: Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Piramal Enterprises Income Tax, Limited (Formerly Known Circle-8(2)(1), As Piramal Healthcare [Erstwhile Dcit Circle- Ltd.) (As Ultimate 7(1)], Successor To Nicholas Vs. Mumbai. Piramal India Ltd.), Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013 Pan: Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 28 (va) (a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"). ITA No.3706/M/2010 & 3 M/s. Piramal Enterprises Limited (Earlier known as Nicholas Piramal India Ltd.) 2. He failed to appreciate and ought to have held that the compensation is paid to the Appellant for settlement due to termination of right to carry on the business of distribution

PIRAMAL HEALTHCARE LTD ( EARLIER KNOWNAS NICHOLAS PIRAMAL INDIA LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 7(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Piramal Enterprises Dy. Commissioner Of Limited (Formerly Known Income Tax, As Piramal Healthcare Range-8(2)(1), Limited) (Earlier Known As Mumbai. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd.), Vs. Piramal Tower, Agastya Corporate Park, Lbs Marg, Kamani Junction, Kurla (West), Mumbai – 400 070 Pan: Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Piramal Enterprises Income Tax, Limited (Formerly Known Circle-8(2)(1), As Piramal Healthcare [Erstwhile Dcit Circle- Ltd.) (As Ultimate 7(1)], Successor To Nicholas Vs. Mumbai. Piramal India Ltd.), Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013 Pan: Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 28 (va) (a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"). ITA No.3706/M/2010 & 3 M/s. Piramal Enterprises Limited (Earlier known as Nicholas Piramal India Ltd.) 2. He failed to appreciate and ought to have held that the compensation is paid to the Appellant for settlement due to termination of right to carry on the business of distribution

FERANI HOTELS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -4(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

House Property.” “1. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIMAL is right on restricting the addition of annual letting value to 2.5% instead of @7% made by AO?” 2. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in late, the CIT(A) is right in directing the AO to compute

MACHINERY & SPARES,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 23(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

property and, therefore, cannot be treated to be a deemed owner in terms of the section 27(iiib) r.w.s. 269 UA(f)(i)of the Act is a bald assertion, and is dehors any reference to the terms and conditions of the agreement. The Tribunal, on the other hand, had considered the entire arrangement and arrived at a considered finding

ACIT - 29(2), MUMBAI vs. MACHINERY & SPARES, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as above

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Dr. A.L. Saini, Hon’Bleacit-29(2), Vs. M/S. Machinery & Spares, Building No. C-10, Room 201-202 Karm Stambh, Lbs No. 202, Income Tax Marg, Opp. Mtnl, Vikhroli-W, Office, Bandra Kurla Mumbai- 400 083. Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-51 Pan No. Aaafm 1528 K (Appellant) (Respondent)

property and, therefore, cannot be treated to be a deemed owner in terms of the section 27(iiib) r.w.s. 269 UA(f)(i)of the Act is a bald assertion, and is dehors any reference to the terms and conditions of the agreement. The Tribunal, on the other hand, had considered the entire arrangement and arrived at a considered finding

MACHINERY & SPARES,MUMBAI vs. JTCIT 23(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as above

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singhmachinery & Spares, 201/202, Karma Stambh, Opp. Mtnl Office, Vikhroli(W), Mumbai 400 051. Pan: Aaafm 1528K ...... Appellant Vs. Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax 23(1), C-10, 1St Floor, B.K.C., Bandra (E), Mumbai 400051 .... Respondent

House property as declared by the Assessee. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the learned CIT(A) & Assessing Officer were correct in holding that the Assesssee is not a deemed owner as per section 27(iiib) r.w.s. 269

MR. PUNET BHATIA,DELHI vs. PR.COMM OF INCOME TAX , MUMBAI

In the result order passed u/s 263 of the act by the learned principal Commissioner of income tax, dated

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Pr. Commissioner Of Income Mr. Puneet Bhatia Tax, C/O Sharma Goel & Co. Llp, Room No. 501, 5Th Floor, A–47, Lower Ground Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Vs. Hauz Khas, New Delhi, Karve Road, Delhi–110016 Mumbai-400 020 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaapb1298H Assessee By : Mr. Ajay Wadhwa, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Sanjay V. Deshmukh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2022

269,532,966/–. 06. On examination of the record by the learned PCIT, he found that that the AO asked the assessee to furnish details of all movable and immovable properties owned by him along with description and address. In response to that assessee has furnished requisite details. Based on those details total seven immovable properties, which included 2 agricultural

ITO 32(3)(4), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA STAFF VAIBHAV CO-OP. HSG. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am Ito-32(3)(4) Vs. State Bank Of India Staff Room No.103, 1St Floor Vaibhav Co-Op Hsg. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan Bungalow No.8, Daulat M.K.Road, Nagar, Road No.1, Mumbai – 400 020 Borivali (E) Mumbai – 400 066 Pan/Gir No.Aaias1423J (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Co No.8/Mum/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.5324/Mum/2016) (Assessment Year :2011-12) State Bank Of India Vs. Ito-32(3)(4) Room No.103, 1St Floor Staff Vaibhav Co-Op Hsg. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan Bungalow No.8, Daulat M.K.Road, Nagar, Road No.1, Mumbai – 400 020 Borivali (E) Mumbai – 400 066 Pan/Gir No.Aaias1423J (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Revenue By Shri Santanu Kumar Saikia Assessee By Shri Dr. P. Daniel Date Of Hearing 13/06/2019 Date Of Pronouncement 19/06/2019

Housing Society Ltd vs ITO reported in 118 ITD 223 (Mum Trib) dated 15.5.2008 wherein the head notes are as under:- ―Capital gains—Chargeability—Sale of additional FSI or right to construct additional floor—Bombay Municipal Corporation (BMC), in 1991, relaxed the Development Control Regulations, 1991 (OCR) entitling the assessee to additional FSI by virtue of which, assessee became entitled

UDAYSINGH P BOBADE (HUF),MUMBAI vs. ITO 19(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result , the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7490/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Sujaysingh P. Bobade (Huf) बनाम/ I.T.O. 19(1)(2), A-101, Amrit Chs Ltd. Piramal Chambers, V. 15 Carter Road, Parel, Mumbai - 400012 Khar (W), Mumbai-400052 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaphs9015L .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

house property and ld CIT DR relied upon 249 ITR 265(supra) & the decision in Aarvee ITA 7490/Mum/12 & 11 ITA 7491/Mum/2012 International in (2006) 101 ITD 495 (Mum. Trib.) & Horizon Investment Company Limited decision in ITA 1593/Mum/13 and also upon decision of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd(supra) and submitted that there is no application of mind / in- adequate inquiry

SUJAYSINGH P BOBADE (HUF),MUMBAI vs. ITO 19(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result , the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7490/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Sujaysingh P. Bobade (Huf) बनाम/ I.T.O. 19(1)(2), A-101, Amrit Chs Ltd. Piramal Chambers, V. 15 Carter Road, Parel, Mumbai - 400012 Khar (W), Mumbai-400052 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaphs9015L .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

house property and ld CIT DR relied upon 249 ITR 265(supra) & the decision in Aarvee ITA 7490/Mum/12 & 11 ITA 7491/Mum/2012 International in (2006) 101 ITD 495 (Mum. Trib.) & Horizon Investment Company Limited decision in ITA 1593/Mum/13 and also upon decision of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd(supra) and submitted that there is no application of mind / in- adequate inquiry

ACIT-16(1), MUMBAI vs. SHREYAS ANIL TALPADE, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Shreyas Anil Talpade Acit 16(1), 6B, Godrej Waldorf, Vs. R. No. 506, 5Th Floor, Swami Samartha, Aayakar Bhavan, Prasanna Chs, Opp. Maharshi Karve Marg, To Millat Nagar, Oshiwara, Churchgate, Andheri, Mumbai- 400 053 Mumbai – 400 020

269/-. The return of income filed by the assessee was processed as such u/s 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment u/s 143(2) of the Act. 3. Assessment was framed by the A.O vide his order passed u/s 143(3), dated 31.12.2016 at an income

A.R. BUILDERS,MUMBAI vs. ITO 18(2)(2), MUMBAI

section 27 (iiib) by the finance Act,1987 with effect from 1st April, 1988 r/ws. 269 UA (f), income from sublease of property held under lease exceeding a period of 12 years is chargeable under the head income from house