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

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

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

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

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

DCIT CENTRAL-CIRCLE-2(4), MUMBAI vs. KEYSTONE REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED, 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

JT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) - CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S KEYSTONE REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED, 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

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

PEGASUS PROPERTIES P. LTD.,PUNE vs. DY CIT, CC-2(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

section for the purpose of house property income, specifically grants exemptions to the properties occupied by the Assessee during the course of business. 13. In the current case under consideration, the Appellant wishes to submit that unsold flats are occupied for business & ensured that the flats are ready, properly cleaned and maintained in a saleable conditions, so that the same

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

House Property of Rs 23,71,076/- were reflecting in the 26AS Statement/ITS details of the appellant. Thus, the appellant was well aware that the income had to be offered for taxation. It was the legal duty on the part of the appellant to honestly show the above two incomes in his original return of income, but the appellant ignored

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

House Property of Rs 23,71,076/- were reflecting in the 26AS Statement/ITS details of the appellant. Thus, the appellant was well aware that the income had to be offered for taxation. It was the legal duty on the part of the appellant to honestly show the above two incomes in his original return of income, but the appellant ignored

SEEMA HEERA,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) (IT) - 2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judicialmember & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11

house property. 7. The Ld. AO erred in initiating notice of penalty u/s 274 read with section 271 and 271F

MAFATLAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-6(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

section 3(1)(0) of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 on 19.09.2000. It sanctioned a scheme for rehabilitation of the Company on 30.10.2002, issued on 15.11.2002 and appointed Industrial Development Bank of India as the Monitoring Agency. 5. Ld. AR submitted that disallowance of interest is made in relation to the outstanding advances granted by the Company prior

MAFATLAL INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 6(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

section 3(1)(0) of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 on 19.09.2000. It sanctioned a scheme for rehabilitation of the Company on 30.10.2002, issued on 15.11.2002 and appointed Industrial Development Bank of India as the Monitoring Agency. 5. Ld. AR submitted that disallowance of interest is made in relation to the outstanding advances granted by the Company prior

MAFATLAL INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 6(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

section 3(1)(0) of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 on 19.09.2000. It sanctioned a scheme for rehabilitation of the Company on 30.10.2002, issued on 15.11.2002 and appointed Industrial Development Bank of India as the Monitoring Agency. 5. Ld. AR submitted that disallowance of interest is made in relation to the outstanding advances granted by the Company prior

SUYASH HOLDING AND ESTATE DEVELOPERS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER-8(2)(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran () & Shri.Narender Kumar Choudhry ()

house property”. With regard to the estimation of rental income, directed the AO to re-compute annual rateable value. The assessed income after giving effect to the order of the Tribunal stood as below:- A.Y. Income after appeal effect As against assessed income A.Y. 2009-10 Rs. 2,06,083/- Rs.10,13,170/- 5. On confirmation of the assessment

SUYASH HOLDING AND ESTATE DEVELOPERS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER-8(2)(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran () & Shri.Narender Kumar Choudhry ()

house property”. With regard to the estimation of rental income, directed the AO to re-compute annual rateable value. The assessed income after giving effect to the order of the Tribunal stood as below:- A.Y. Income after appeal effect As against assessed income A.Y. 2009-10 Rs. 2,06,083/- Rs.10,13,170/- 5. On confirmation of the assessment