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

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

property may not by itself be furnishing inaccurate particulars. It was further held that the assessee must be found to have failed to prove that his explanation is not only not bona fide but all the facts relating to the same and material to the computation of his income were not disclosed by him. It was then held that

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

property may not by itself be furnishing inaccurate particulars. It was further held that the assessee must be found to have failed to prove that his explanation is not only not bona fide but all the facts relating to the same and material to the computation of his income were not disclosed by him. It was then held that

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

property may not by itself be furnishing inaccurate particulars. It was further held that the assessee must be found to have failed to prove that his explanation is not only not bona fide but all the facts relating to the same and material to the computation of his income were not disclosed by him. It was then held that

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

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

property may not by itself be furnishing inaccurate particulars. It was further held that the assessee must be found to have failed to prove that his explanation is not only not bona fide but all the facts relating to the same and material to the computation of his income were not disclosed by him. It was then held that

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

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

property may not by itself be furnishing inaccurate particulars. It was further held that the assessee must be found to have failed to prove that his explanation is not only not bona fide but all the facts relating to the same and material to the computation of his income were not disclosed by him. It was then held that

MANOJ TEKRIWAL,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 24(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 54 of the Act, by observing as under: ―8.3 In respect of the other two properties, the assessee has not entered in to any agreement for purchase. He had only a right to acquire the property by way of the allotment letter. So what is surrendered is only the right to acquire the property and not the residential property

DCIT-CC-5(4), MUMBAI vs. RAGHULEELA ESTATES PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

house property income on account of maintenance charges without Raghuleela Estate Pvt. Ltd. appreciating the fact that common area maintenance charges were part of rent agreement. ix) On the fact and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case

DCIT-CC-5(4), MUMBAI vs. RAGHULEELA ESTATES PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

house property income on account of maintenance charges without Raghuleela Estate Pvt. Ltd. appreciating the fact that common area maintenance charges were part of rent agreement. ix) On the fact and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case

DCIT -CC-5(4), MUMBAI vs. RAGHULEELA ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

house property income on account of maintenance charges without Raghuleela Estate Pvt. Ltd. appreciating the fact that common area maintenance charges were part of rent agreement. ix) On the fact and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case

ROHIT CHATTERJI,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-35(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal in ITA

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

section 271(1)(c) of the Act was passed on 28.06.2018. levying minimum penalty of Rs.9,24,760/-, being 100% of the tax sought to be evaded on Rs.29,92,738/- (Income from Other Sources of Rs.6,21,662/- and Income from House Property

ROHIT CHATTERJI,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE, 35(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal in ITA

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

section 271(1)(c) of the Act was passed on 28.06.2018. levying minimum penalty of Rs.9,24,760/-, being 100% of the tax sought to be evaded on Rs.29,92,738/- (Income from Other Sources of Rs.6,21,662/- and Income from House Property

VIJAY MORU MHATRE,PANVEL vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, THANE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Amarjit Singhvijay Moru Mhatre, Vs. Acit, Cc-1 Plot No. 08, 1St Floor 6Th Floor Room No. 10, Mcch Society, Panvel Road No. 16-Z, Ashar It Maharashtra – 410206 Park, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane (W) स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aehpm8104Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Khushiram Jadhawani Respondent By : Usha Gaikwad Date Of Hearing 13.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 19.12.2023

house property was added to the total income of the assessee. The AO had also levied penalty of Rs.89,899/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the above referred differential amount. During the course of appellate proceedings before us the ld. Counsel has contended vehemently that the AO had issued notice u/s 274 read with Sec. 271

PHOENIX INTERNATIONAL FREIGHT SERVICES P. LTD( NOW KNOWN AS AS C.H. ROBINSON INTERNATIONAL (INDIA) P.LTD,),MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shripavankumargadale,Judicialmember & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S. Phoenix Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of International Freight Income Tax, Range-2(1) Services Pvt. Ltd. (Now Mumbai-400050 Known As C.H. Robinson International (India) Pvt. Ltd.) Excom House 7, Saki Vihar Road, Andheri (East) Mumbai-400072 Pan No.Aabce0443R Appellant Respondent

House 7, Saki Vihar Road, Andheri (East) Mumbai-400072 Pan No.AABCE0443R Appellant Respondent Appellant by None Respondent by Smt. Sonia Kumar Sr. AR Date of Hearing 29.09.2022 Date of 14.10.2022 Pronouncement ORDER PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM: The assessee has filed the appeal against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal(CIT(A))-4 Mumbai 2 M/s Phoenix International

GOPALKRISHNA PANDU SHETTY,MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA vs. ACIT CIRCLE 32(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI, MAHRASHTRA

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

Section 54F of the Act in respect of a residential house property purchases of an assessee in the name of his wife. The aforesaid decision was followed by the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Bhagwan Swaroop Pathak Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -1(3), Gurgaon, Haryana : [ITA No. 2754/Del/2019, dated 05/03/2020]. Reliance was also placed

SHYAM KUMAR SADASHIVAN PILLAI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE 27(3)(1), NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

property during the year under consideration for Rs.91,40,000 and that no return of income has been filed. The AO issued notices under section 142(1) on various dates and the assessee filed the return of income under section 148 in response to last of the notices. The assessee paid the tax due on the income returned and filed

M/S. NICHOLAS PIRAMAL INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT CUR 7(1),

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanpiramal Enterprises Ltd Vs. Acit, Circle – 7(1) (Formerly Known As Aayakar Bhavan Piramal Healthcare Ltd) Mumbai – 400020. (Before Known As Nicholas Piramal Ind) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400013. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn4538P Appellant .. Respondent Dcit, Circle – 7(1) Vs. Piramal Enterprises Ltd Aayakar Bhyavan (Formerly Known As Mumbai – 400 020. Piramal Healthcare Ltd) (Before Known As Nicholas Piramal Ind) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn4538P Assessee By : Mr.Ronak Doshi & Ms.Manshi Padhiyar.Ar Revenue By : Mr.S.N.Kabra.Dr

house property' as against assessed as income from 'other sources' ignoring the fact that the assessee was not the legal owner of the property in the relevant assessment year. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in directing that deduction u/s.80 HHC in the cases in which the provisions

DCIT CEN CIR 10, MUMBAI vs. KEYSTONE REALTORS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

Properties- (2013) 353 ITR 36 (BOM), Bramha Associates (supra) and Britannia Industries Ltd. v. CIT- (2005) 148 TaxMan.Com 468 SC in support of her contentions. 11. The rival contentions now fall for our determination. 12. The reasoning of the ITAT that the exclusion of the 5 residential units from out of the 352 residential units in the entire housing project