THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

282 (Del) CIT v Lakhani Marketing Incl. reported in 272 CTR 265 (P&H) 51 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. 118. From the record, we found that in response to show-cause notice issued by the AO, the assessee has contended that no disallowance on account of interest can be made as the assessee has huge surplus funds for making

THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

282 (Del) CIT v Lakhani Marketing Incl. reported in 272 CTR 265 (P&H) 51 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. 118. From the record, we found that in response to show-cause notice issued by the AO, the assessee has contended that no disallowance on account of interest can be made as the assessee has huge surplus funds for making

THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

282 (Del) CIT v Lakhani Marketing Incl. reported in 272 CTR 265 (P&H) 51 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. 118. From the record, we found that in response to show-cause notice issued by the AO, the assessee has contended that no disallowance on account of interest can be made as the assessee has huge surplus funds for making

THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

282 (Del) CIT v Lakhani Marketing Incl. reported in 272 CTR 265 (P&H) 51 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. 118. From the record, we found that in response to show-cause notice issued by the AO, the assessee has contended that no disallowance on account of interest can be made as the assessee has huge surplus funds for making

THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

282 (Del) CIT v Lakhani Marketing Incl. reported in 272 CTR 265 (P&H) 51 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. 118. From the record, we found that in response to show-cause notice issued by the AO, the assessee has contended that no disallowance on account of interest can be made as the assessee has huge surplus funds for making

THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

282 (Del) CIT v Lakhani Marketing Incl. reported in 272 CTR 265 (P&H) 51 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. 118. From the record, we found that in response to show-cause notice issued by the AO, the assessee has contended that no disallowance on account of interest can be made as the assessee has huge surplus funds for making

ASST CIT CC 8(4), MUMBAI vs. PHOENIX MILLS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

282 (Del) CIT v Lakhani Marketing Incl. reported in 272 CTR 265 (P&H) 51 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. 118. From the record, we found that in response to show-cause notice issued by the AO, the assessee has contended that no disallowance on account of interest can be made as the assessee has huge surplus funds for making

DCIT CC 4(2), MUMBAI vs. ROCKFORT ESTATE DEVELOPERS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Cc-4(2) Vs M/S Rockfort Estate Room No. 1918, 19Th Developers Pvt Ltd Floor, Air India Bldg, 1,Leela Baug, Andheri – Nariman Point, Kurla, Mumbai – 400021. Mumbai – 400051. Pan/Gir No. : Aabcr7896K Appellant .. Respondent Co No. 72/Mum/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 4091/Mum/2019 A.Y 2014-15) M/S Rockfort Estate Vs Dcit, Cc-4(2) Developers Pvt Ltd Room No. 1918, 19Th 1, Leela Baug,Andheri Floor, Air India Bldg, – Kurla, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400051. Mumbai – 400021. Pan/Gir No. : Aabcr7896K Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Mr.Rahul Hakani.Ar Revenue By : Mr.S.N. Kabra.Dr Date Of Hearing 28.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25.04.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-52

section 22 of the IT Act states that "Rental Income" is taxable under the head "Income from House Property" if the following three conditions are satisfied a) The property should consist of any buildings or land appurtenant there to; b) The appellant should be the owner of the property; c) The property should not be used by the owner

H & M HOUSING FINANCE AND LEASING PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, ground No. 1 and 2 of the assessee‟s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanassessment Year : 2017-18 H&M Housing Finance & Deputy Commissioner Of Leasing Private Limited, Income Tax, C/62, 9Th Floor, Vibgyor Towers, Vs. Circle–7(1)(2), Bandra Kurla Complex, Aayakar Bhavan, Bandra (East), M.K.Road, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400020. Pan : Aabch4398E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nitesh Joshi & Shri Nishith Khatri Revenue By : Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr.Dr

Section 22 is unavailable to an assessee, who is in the business of letting out properties. 13. In the prior Assessment Years, the Assessing Officer had accepted the assessee's treatment of such income as an income from house property, which is one of the factors which has weighed with the Tribunal to allow the Appeals filed by the assessee

VAIJANTHI MAHAVIR OZA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(IT)-3(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5799/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) बिाम/ Vaijanthi Mahavir Oza, Income Tax Officer- C/O. Chhajed & Doshi, (International Taxation)- 101, Hubtown Solaris, 3(3)(1) V. N.S Phadke Marg, Room No. 1628, Near East West Flyover, 16Th Floor Andheri (E), Air India Building Mumbai- 400069 Mumbai स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Abepo5631J (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Piyush Chhajjed Revenue By: Miss. Deepika Arora (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 09.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.04.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 5799/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 23.06.2017, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-57, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2014-15, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 23.12.2016 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2014-15. I.T.A. No.5799/Mum/2017

property outside India was not allowed u/s 54F. iv. On the basis of these decisions, the AO makes an argument in favour of interpretation of the provisions of the Act in a holistic manner and in the appropriate context, to arrive at its proper meaning, that is, the context of section I.T.A. No.5799/Mum/2017 54. In the case laws cited

ACIT 4(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. THE NEW PIECE GOODS BAZAR CO. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the Revenues’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

section, even as explained during hearing, is that the assessee, irrespective of it having incurred, or not so, any expenditure in relation to earning the rental income, is entitled to a statutory deduction from the annual value at a fixed rate thereof, representing a cap on the said deduction. As apparent, the same precludes any loss arising to the assessee

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\nstatistical purpose

section 250 of the Act is untenable and unsustainable and as\nsuch the order passed is bad in law and liable to be\ncancelled/quashed.\nGOA 2: Issue Disallowance of Service charges and incidental expenses\n[Tax effect. Rs.23,41,126/-]\n2.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the\nlearnedCommissioner erred in confirming disallowance

ACIT CIR 12(3), MUMBAI vs. LAKE VIEW DEVELOPERS, MUMBAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3409/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Lake View Developers Addl. Cit, Range 12(3), बनाम/ 514, Dalamal Towers, Mumbai 211 F.P.J. Marg, Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai-400 021 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafl 0589 R (Assessee) : (Revenue) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4495/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बनाम/ Addl. Cit, Range 12(3), Lake View Developers Mumbai Mumbai-400 021 Vs. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafl 0589 R (Revenue) (Assessee) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4496/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Addl. Cit, Range 12(3), Omega Associates, बनाम/ Mumbai 514, Dalamal Tower, 211-F.P.J. Marg, Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai-400 021 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafl 0589 R (Revenue) : (Assessee) : Shri Chetan Karia Revenue By Assessee By : Shri R. P. Rastogi सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 03.5.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 28.7.2016 Date Of Pronouncement

house property. So, however, the assessee claims that as certain furniture and fixture stands also leased along with, depreciation thereon be allowed as deduction. We are unable to appreciate the assessee’s case as there is no provision for allowing depreciation under Chapter IV-C of the Act, i.e., for computing property income. Besides being in breach of the scheme

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 250 of the Act is untenable and unsustainable and as such the order passed is bad in law and liable to be cancelled/quashed. GOA 2: Issue Disallowance of Service charges and incidental expenses [Tax effect. Rs.23,41,126/-] 2.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learnedCommissioner erred in confirming disallowance

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 250 of the Act is untenable and unsustainable and as such the order passed is bad in law and liable to be cancelled/quashed. GOA 2: Issue Disallowance of Service charges and incidental expenses [Tax effect. Rs.23,41,126/-] 2.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learnedCommissioner erred in confirming disallowance

VISHNUPRASAD S SHAH,MUMBAI vs. I.T.O. 15(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya, A M & Shri Pawan Singh, J M. Assessment Year: 2006-07 Mr. Vishnuprasad S Shah, Ito Ward 15(3)(1), 1St Floor, Matru Mandir, Flat No.2, Vatsal Building, 6Th Khetwadi Lane, Mumbai. Vs. Mumbai-400004. Pan: Acaps6370F (Appellant) (Respondent)

house property in its order dated 20.12.2010 against which the present appeal is filed before us. 4. None has appeared when the case was called for hearing despite repeated calls. The assessee was served notice on 22.11.2013, for the hearing fixed for 09.01.2014 as bench was not functioning on that day. Hence, a further notice was directed to be issued

BENCO FINANCE & INVESTMENT P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 40, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh () & Shri Ravish Sood () Benco Finance & Investment Dy. Cit, Central Circle-40 Private Limited; 205, Sujata Vs. (Now Dcit, Central Circle -7(2), Mumbai) Room No. 656, 6Th Floor, Chambers, 2Nd Floor, 1/3 Aaykar Bhawan, M.K Road, Abhichan Gandhi Marg, Off. Mumbai – 400 020. Katha Bazar, Masjid Bunder (W), Mumbai – 400 009 (Assessee) (Revenue) Pan No. Aabcb9349R Assessee By : S/Shri Vijay Mehta & Purushottam, A.Rs Revenue By : Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi, D.R Date Of Hearing : 18/06/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 10/08/2021

property etc., the A.O reopened her case and issued a notice u/s 148, dated 15.03.2013 and despatched the same for delivery through post at the address that was mentioned in her PAN database. However, the aforesaid notice issued u/s 148,dated 15.03.2018 was returned by the postal authorities on 23.03.2018 with a remark ―left‖. As the assessee had not changed

ASST CIT CEN CIR 29, MUMBAI vs. SHAH RUKH KHAN, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri N.K.Pradhan, Am Dy. Commissoner Of Income-Tax, Shri Shah Rukh Khan Central Circle-4(2), Mumbai 44-Mannat, B.J. Road, Band बिधम/ (Erstwhile Assistant Commissioner Of Income Stand, Bandra (West), Tax, Central Circle-29, Mumbai) Mumbai-400 050. Vs. R. No. 1918, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aahpk3293L (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

house property. The ld. D.R submitted that as the addition made in respect of the variation of the annual lettable value of the property was on the basis of the figure provided by the assessee on the basis of a valuation report procured by him, therefore, it could safely be concluded that neither the issue nor the quantification