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 ()

House Property', which is not allowable. As such, provisions of uch, provisions of section 40A(2)(b) of the Act are clearly applicable in respect of section 40A(2)(b) of the Act are clearly applicable in respect of section 40A(2)(b) of the Act are clearly applicable in respect of interest payment of Rs.2,19,87,072/ interest

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 ()

House Property', which is not allowable. As such, provisions of uch, provisions of section 40A(2)(b) of the Act are clearly applicable in respect of section 40A(2)(b) of the Act are clearly applicable in respect of section 40A(2)(b) of the Act are clearly applicable in respect of interest payment of Rs.2,19,87,072/ interest

D C POLYESTER LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(4), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

270A of the Act for “under reporting” of the income. Before the Assessing Officer, the assessee submitted that it did not under report any income and addition made by the AO pertained to the statutory deduction allowable under section 24(a) of the Act while computing income under the head ‘income from house property

ANGLO EASTERN INSTITUTES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO 9(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Smt. Renu Jauhrianglo Eastern Institutes V/S. Cit(A)/Nfac, बनाम Pvt. Ltd. Delhi Unit No. 102, Mezzaniene Floor, Leela Business Park, Marol, Andheri-Kurla Road, Andheri (E), Maharashtra-400059 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aahcca3508K Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

section 270A(9)(a) of the Act for misrepresentation.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return for AY 2017- 18 declaring total income of Rs. 13,71,950/-. The case was selected for scrutiny. The assessee has shown income from house property

CORNERSTONE ONDEMAND LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION )-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

section 270A of the Act. From the facts discussed earlier, it can be noticed that the addition came to be made on account of change in the head of income for assessing the rental income. We noticed that the assessee had offered rental income under the head "Income from House Property

CORNERSTONE ONDEMAND LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION )-291)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

section 270A of the Act. From the facts discussed earlier, it can be noticed that the addition came to be made on account of change in the head of income for assessing the rental income. We noticed that the assessee had offered rental income under the head "Income from House Property

CORNERSTONE ONDEMAND LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION )-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

section 270A of the Act. From the facts discussed earlier, it can be noticed that the addition came to be made on account of change in the head of income for assessing the rental income. We noticed that the assessee had offered rental income under the head "Income from House Property

CORNERSTONE ONDEMAND LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT(IT)-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

section 270A of the Act. From the facts discussed earlier, it can be noticed that the addition came to be made on account of change in the head of income for assessing the rental income. We noticed that the assessee had offered rental income under the head "Income from House Property

CONNERSTONE ONDEMAND LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION )-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

section 270A of the Act. From the facts discussed earlier, it can be noticed that the addition came to be made on account of change in the head of income for assessing the rental income. We noticed that the assessee had offered rental income under the head "Income from House Property

ANJIS DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE CIT-5,MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Anjis Developers Private Limited, Pcit-5, 2Nd Floor, Soham Apartments, Room No. 515, 5Th Floor, 208, Walkeshwar Road, Teen Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mk. Batti, Road, Mumbai-400006. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaaca 6022 H Appellant Respondent : Assessee By S. Sriram/Dinesh Kukreja/Ssnyaknavedie Revenue By : Shri Chetan Kacha, Dr : Date Of Hearing 25/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/02/2023

house property’ in respect of unsold property’ in respect of unsold flats,the Assessing Officer was he Assessing Officer was required to initiate penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act and initiate penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act and initiate penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act and non-initiation of penalty of penalty has rendered the assessment order

ISHARES MSCI ALL COUNTRY ASIA EX JAPAN ETF(AS A SUCCESSOR TO ISHARES MSCI ALL COUNTRY ASIA EX JAPAN MAURITIUS CO),MUMBAI vs. DCIT (INT)-2(2)(2), MUMBAI

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

house property,\nprofit and gains from business of profession, capital gains and income from\nother sources. Section 66 to 80 deals with the aggregation of income and set\noff /carry forward of loss.\n7. 1. Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. M. N. Raigi reported in\n(1949) 17 ITR 180 considered as to whether share

M/S G M BUILDERS,MUMBAI vs. PCIT(MUMBAI), OLD-ACIT CIRCLE-22(1), PIRAMAL CHAMBER, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhailm/S. G M Builders, 115, Veena Beena Shipping Center, Turner Road, Bandra West, Mumbai - 400050 Pan – Aaafg1872G ……………. Appellant

270A of the Act, amounts to allowing relief to the appellant to term the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.” 3. The only grievance of the assessee is against the revisionary proceedings initiated under section 263 of the Act. 4. The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue

ISHARES MSCI EMERGING MARKETS ETF (AS A SUCCESSOR TO ISHARES EMERGING MARKETS INDEX MAURITIUS CO ),MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2(2)(2), MUMBAI

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

house property,\nprofit and gains from business of profession, capital gains and income from\nother sources. Section 66 to 80 deals with the aggregation of income and set\noff /carry forward of loss.\n7. 1. Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. M. N. Raigi reported in\n(1949) 17 ITR 180 considered as to whether share

ISHARES MSCI EM UCITS ETF USD DIST ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2(2)(2), MUMBAI

house property,\nprofit and gains from business of profession, capital gains and income from\nother sources. Section 66 to 80 deals with the aggregation of income and set\noff /carry forward of loss.\n\n7. 1. Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. M. N. Raigi reported in\n(1949) 17 ITR 180 considered as to whether

ISHARES CORE MSCI TOTAL INTERNATIONAL STOCK ETF (AS A SUCCESSOR TO ISHARES CORE TOTAL INTERNATIONAL STOCK MAURITIUS CO ),MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2(2)(2), MUMBAI

house property,\nprofit and gains from business of profession, capital gains and income from\nother sources. Section 66 to 80 deals with the aggregation of income and set\noff /carry forward of loss.\n7. 1. Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. M. N. Raigi reported in\n(1949) 17 ITR 180 considered as to whether share

ISHARES MSCI INDIA UCITS ETF ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION )-2(2)(2), MUMBAI

house property,\nprofit and gains from business of profession, capital gains and income from\nother sources. Section 66 to 80 deals with the aggregation of income and set\noff /carry forward of loss.\n\n7. 1. Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. M. N. Raigi reported in\n(1949) 17 ITR 180 considered as to whether

ISHARES CORE MSCI EM IMI UCITS ETF,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (INT)-2(2)(2), MUMBAI

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

house property,\nprofit and gains from business of profession, capital gains and income from\nother sources. Section 66 to 80 deals with the aggregation of income and set\noff /carry forward of loss.\n7. 1. Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. M. N. Raigi reported in\n(1949) 17 ITR 180 considered as to whether share

ISHARES INDIA 50 ETF (AS A SUCCESSOR TO ISHARES INDIA MAURITIUS CO ),MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2(2)(2), MUMBAI

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

house property,\nprofit and gains from business of profession, capital gains and income from\nother sources. Section 66 to 80 deals with the aggregation of income and set\noff /carry forward of loss.\n7. 1. Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. M. N. Raigi reported in\n(1949) 17 ITR 180 considered as to whether share