DY..C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S STATE BANK OF MYSORE, BANGALORE

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

housing in India. On perusal of the findings of the coordinate bench in assessee's own case for earlier years on the impugned issue we notice that this issue has been allowed on the ground that the principal of consistency should be followed and that the assessee's claim from AY 2008-09 following the same methodology has not been

STATE BANK OF MYSORE,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

housing in India. On perusal of the findings of the coordinate bench in assessee's own case for earlier years on the impugned issue we notice that this issue has been allowed on the ground that the principal of consistency should be followed and that the assessee's claim from AY 2008-09 following the same methodology has not been

ARIHANT DEVELOPERS ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -1, KALYAN

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are\ndismissed

ii).\nProgressive Homes Vs. ACIT [ITA No.5082 /Mum/2016, dated\n16.05.2018]. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, we are of the\nconsidered view that the issue involved in the present appeal is squarely\ncovered in favour of the assessee. It may also be relevant and pertinent to\npoint out that the Tribunal while disposing off the appeal in the case

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)

Section 23(1)(c) of the Act. 46. Similar addition has also been made by the AO in the assessment year 2010-11 amounting to Rs.28,84,560/-. Following the reasoning given by us for assessment year 2009-2010 hereinabove we do not find any justification for the addition so made on account of deemed rent. Accordingly AO is directed

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)

Section 23(1)(c) of the Act. 46. Similar addition has also been made by the AO in the assessment year 2010-11 amounting to Rs.28,84,560/-. Following the reasoning given by us for assessment year 2009-2010 hereinabove we do not find any justification for the addition so made on account of deemed rent. Accordingly AO is directed

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)

Section 23(1)(c) of the Act. 46. Similar addition has also been made by the AO in the assessment year 2010-11 amounting to Rs.28,84,560/-. Following the reasoning given by us for assessment year 2009-2010 hereinabove we do not find any justification for the addition so made on account of deemed rent. Accordingly AO is directed

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)

Section 23(1)(c) of the Act. 46. Similar addition has also been made by the AO in the assessment year 2010-11 amounting to Rs.28,84,560/-. Following the reasoning given by us for assessment year 2009-2010 hereinabove we do not find any justification for the addition so made on account of deemed rent. Accordingly AO is directed

THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 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)

Section 23(1)(c) of the Act. 46. Similar addition has also been made by the AO in the assessment year 2010-11 amounting to Rs.28,84,560/-. Following the reasoning given by us for assessment year 2009-2010 hereinabove we do not find any justification for the addition so made on account of deemed rent. Accordingly AO is directed

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)

Section 23(1)(c) of the Act. 46. Similar addition has also been made by the AO in the assessment year 2010-11 amounting to Rs.28,84,560/-. Following the reasoning given by us for assessment year 2009-2010 hereinabove we do not find any justification for the addition so made on account of deemed rent. Accordingly AO is directed

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)

Section 23(1)(c) of the Act. 46. Similar addition has also been made by the AO in the assessment year 2010-11 amounting to Rs.28,84,560/-. Following the reasoning given by us for assessment year 2009-2010 hereinabove we do not find any justification for the addition so made on account of deemed rent. Accordingly AO is directed

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)

Section 23(1)(c) of the Act. 46. Similar addition has also been made by the AO in the assessment year 2010-11 amounting to Rs.28,84,560/-. Following the reasoning given by us for assessment year 2009-2010 hereinabove we do not find any justification for the addition so made on account of deemed rent. Accordingly AO is directed

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)

Section 23(1)(c) of the Act. 46. Similar addition has also been made by the AO in the assessment year 2010-11 amounting to Rs.28,84,560/-. Following the reasoning given by us for assessment year 2009-2010 hereinabove we do not find any justification for the addition so made on account of deemed rent. Accordingly AO is directed

EMCO DYESTUFF PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 12(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2014-15

1)(ii) of the Act to the assessee as claimed by him for the year under consideration.” 7. Similarly, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ram Das Maniklal Gandhi vs. UOI (2000) 108 Taxman 590 (Bom) has held that the donation to an institution whose approval was withdrawn by the prescribed authority with 6 M/s. Emco

INCOME TAX OFFICER-25(3)(5), MUMBAI vs. NILIMA ABHIJIT TANNU, MUMBAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri G. Manjunatha, Am

ii) Now, as pointed out by AO and as evident from isolated reading of provisions of sub section 4 of section 54F, the unutilised amount, if any was to be deposited in capital gain scheme account before due date of filing return as provided in sub section 1 of section 139 of ITA. iii) From joint reading of the entire

SIR RATAN TATA TRUST,MUMBAI SUBURBAN vs. ADDITIONAL /JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NFAC, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in both AY 2014-15 and AY

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

House, 24, National Faceless Assessment Homi Mody Street, Fort, Centre-2(1), Vs. Mumbai-400001 MTNL Tele Building, PAN : AAATS1013P Cumballa Hills, Peddar Road, Mumbai-400026. Appellant) : Respondent) Appellant/Assessee by : Shri P. J. Pardiwala a/w Shri Sukhsagar Syal, AR Revenue/Respondent by : Shri Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 22.07.2024 Date of Pronouncement 26.08.2024 : Per Padmavathy S, AM: 1. These

SIR RATAN TATA TRUST,MUMBAI SUBURBAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in both AY 2014-15 and AY

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

House, 24, National Faceless Assessment Homi Mody Street, Fort, Centre-2(1), Vs. Mumbai-400001 MTNL Tele Building, PAN : AAATS1013P Cumballa Hills, Peddar Road, Mumbai-400026. Appellant) : Respondent) Appellant/Assessee by : Shri P. J. Pardiwala a/w Shri Sukhsagar Syal, AR Revenue/Respondent by : Shri Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 22.07.2024 Date of Pronouncement 26.08.2024 : Per Padmavathy S, AM: 1. These

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

1) of the act under the head income from house property. ii. With respect to the deduction of Municipal taxes, there is no requirement for reducing the income of the assessee where the learned assessing officer has estimated the percentage of the cost of the equity as rate of return on the investment. In fact, the deduction of municipal taxes

MOHAN GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRLE - 5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

1) of the act under the head income from house property. ii. With respect to the deduction of Municipal taxes, there is no requirement for reducing the income of the assessee where the learned assessing officer has estimated the percentage of the cost of the equity as rate of return on the investment. In fact, the deduction of municipal taxes

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

1) of the act under the head income from house property. ii. With respect to the deduction of Municipal taxes, there is no requirement for reducing the income of the assessee where the learned assessing officer has estimated the percentage of the cost of the equity as rate of return on the investment. In fact, the deduction of municipal taxes