KANAKIA SPACES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are allowed for

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singh

house property as his stock-in- trade which is not let out for the whole or part of the year, the annual value of such property will be considered as Nil for a period up to one year from the end of the financial year in which a completion certificate is obtained from the competent authority. In view

MLL LOGISTICS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - 3(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu (Hon’Ble) & Shri Saktijit Dey (Hon’Ble)

section 133(6) of the Act from the housing society and making further enquiry, the assessing officer found that the market value of the rent in the particular area is between Rs. 4 to 4.9 lakhs per month. Thus, he was of the view that the assessee, in lieu of the reduced rent, has received refundable deposit of Rs. Crores

ACIT - 1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. CYRUS INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY CYRUS INVESTMENTS LTD.), MUMBAI

In the result , appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6414/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Assistant Commissioner Of बिाम/ M/S Cyrus Investments Income-Tax-1(1)(1) Private Limited 579, Aayakar Bhawan Esplanade House, Fort V. M K Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400002 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaacc2880P (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

House, Fort v. M K Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400002 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ PAN : AAACC2880P (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue by : Shri Rajat Mittal (DR) Assessee by: Shri Beharilal सुनवाई की तारीख /Date of Hearing : 01.05.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 09.05.2018 आदेश / O R D E R PER RAMIT KOCHAR, Accountant Member This appeal, filed by the Revenue

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

JOLLY MAKER 1 PREM CO-OP SOC LTD,MUMBAI CITY vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 17(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 80P of the Act has been allowed to the Appellant in aforesaid assessment years and Asst Year 2018-19, c) Deduction of service charges/incidental expenses have been allowed by Hon'ble ITAT in the Appellant's own cases in IТА по 3503/Mum/2009 (Asst Year 2005-06), ІТА по 5140/Мum/2014 (2009- 10) and ITA по 1450/MUM/2017 (Asst Year

JOLLY MAKER 1 PREM CO-OP SOC LTD,MUMBAI CITY vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 17(2) , MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 80P of the Act has been allowed to the Appellant in aforesaid assessment years and Asst Year 2018-19, c) Deduction of service charges/incidental expenses have been allowed by Hon'ble ITAT in the Appellant's own cases in ITA no 3503/Mum/2009 (Asst Year 2005-06), ITA no 5140/Mum/2014 (2009- 10) and ITA no 1450/MUM/2017 (Asst Year

JOLLY MAKER 1 PREM CO-OP SOC LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 17(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 80P of the Act has been allowed to the Appellant in aforesaid assessment years and Asst Year 2018-19, c) Deduction of service charges/incidental expenses have been allowed by Hon'ble ITAT in the Appellant's own cases in ITA no 3503/Mum/2009 (Asst Year 2005-06), ITA no 5140/Mum/2014 (2009- 10) and ITA no 1450/MUM/2017 (Asst Year

VASWANI TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri G. Manjunatha

House Property' and not under 'Income from Other Sources' the assessee was wrongfully and willfully enjoying incorrect claim u/s.24 of IT. Act, 1961, thereby rendering the particulars in original return filed as absolutely inaccurate, and willful concealment of income. It is pertinent to mention here that the assessee AOP first computes the total income

NAVBHARAT POTTERIES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CIRCLE 7(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in above\nterms

section 23(1)(c). In other words, vacancy allowance can be given\nonly when the property is let and vacant for part of the year. No contrary\njudgment of any other High court or the Hon'ble Apex Court has been\nbrought to our notice. Accordingly, the claim of vacancy allowance in\nrespect of 12 units which remained vacant

ALLIED PHOTOGRAPHICS INDIA LIMITED ,CHURCHGATE vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTER, DELHI

Bench: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

house property, and (b) disallowance of INR 1,21,179/- under Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (for short the ‘IT Rules’). It is stated that the Appellant accepted the assessment order and did not file appeal before CIT(A) to avoid litigation and in view of smallness of the amount involved. 3.1. Subsequently

SHRI VIVEK TALWAR,MUMBAI vs. ACIT- CC - 46 , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanshri Vivek Talwar Acit, Central Cricle-46, Room No. 659, 6Th Floor, 17-B, Ill Palazzo, Ridge Road, Malabar Hill, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Mumbai-400006. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan: Aaapt3994Q Appellant Respondent Shri Vivek Talwar Acit, Central Cricle-46, Room No. 659, 6Th Floor, 17-B, Ill Palazzo, Ridge Road, Malabar Hill, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Mumbai-400006. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan: Aaapt3994Q Appellant Respondent

House Property. However, the Assessing Officer estimated the Annual Letting Value (ALV) of property at Rs. 3.60 Lakhs. The assessee being 50% owner of the said property, accordingly, half of the ALV was treated as Rs. 1.80 lakhs after granting 30% deduction, the ALV of the property was treated as Rs. 1.26 Lakhs. The Assessing Officer also disallowed legal

DCIT CENT. CIR. -4(1), CENTRAL RANGE-4, MUMBAI vs. M/S. RUNWAL DEVELOPERS P. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sood

274,555,611 Closing Work in Progress Runwal Pride -Mulund 280,615,633 270,651,123 Runwal Symphont/-Santacruz 356,049,199 - Gabriel Property Mulund 1,071,378,683 859,137,846 Total Rs. 4,123,562,393 1,718,827,459 M/s Runwall Developers Pvt. Ltd. Under the head 'Mall Upkeep and Promotional expenses', the assessee has debited

RUNWAL DEVELOPEMENT P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 23, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No 4824/Mum/2014 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

274,555,611 Closing Work in Progress Runwal Pride –Mulund 280,615,633 270,651,123 Runwal Symphony-Santacruz 356,049,199 - Gabriel Property Mulund 1,071,378,683 859,137,846 Total Rs. 4,123,562,393 1,718,827,459 ITA 4824/Mum/2014 14 Under the head ‘Mall Upkeep and Promotional expenses’, the assessee has debited Rs.11

M/S ASHISH LAND & PROPERTY DEVELOPERS PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 9 (1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Blem/S. Ashish Land & Property V. Income Tax Officer – 9(1)(4) Developers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai 10Th Floor, 215, Atrium Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai - 400059 Pan: Aagca2673J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Anuj Kisnadwala Department By : Shri Mehul Jain

274) on loan taken from M/s. Kanakia Spaces Pvt Ltd is found to be not allowable against House Property Income. Accordingly an addition of ₹. 81,63,625/- is made to the total income of the assessee under the head of income from “House Property”. 5. Assessing Officer also not allowed alternate claim of allowability of proportionate interest expenses

ITO 14(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ALTITUS MANAGEMENT ADVISORS P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ito 14(1)(1) M/S Altitus Managment R. No. 431, 4Th Floor, Advisors P. Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Metropolitan Building Block Mumbai: 400 020. E, 5Th Floor, Bandra Kurla Vs. Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400 051 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aafca2213B (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

section 9(1)(i). It was also held that there was no justification for adding a particular sum to the stipulated rent merely because the tenant had undertaken to bear the cost of repairs. We further refer to the decision in CIT Vs. Smt. Nayeema Momen, where it was held that where the tenant had agreed to pay the maintenance

ITO (IT) 2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. PAMELA PRITAM GHOSH, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Ito-(It)-2(3)(1), Mumbai Mrs. Pamela Pritam Ghosh, C/O 17Th Floor, Room No. 1727, C C Dayal & Co. Cas. Jeevan Vs. Air India Building, Nariman Udyog, 278, D.D. Road, Fort, Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400001 Pan No. Acapg8593Q Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Ms. S. Padmaja, Cit (Dr) Assessee By : Mr. Sanjay V. Kalwint, Ar Date Of Hearing : 18/04/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 27/06/2018. Order Per N.K. Pradhan, Am This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2011-12. The Appeal Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-57, Mumbai [In Short ‘Cit(A)’]And Arises Out Of The Assessment Completed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (The ‘Act’). 2. The Grounds Of Appeals Read As Under: 1. Whether On Facts & Circumstance Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Allowing Deduction Under Section 54 For Investment Of Capital Gain In Purchase Of New Residential House In Australia & Thus Allowing The Shifting

property situated in India and purchased a residential house in the United States of America. The AO held that the residential house purchased outside India was not subject to tax in India within the meaning of section 54 of the Act and thus disallowed the claim of deduction. The CIT(A) and Tribunal confirmed this. On appeal by the assessee

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

KEYSTONE REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), 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