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

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

2(47)(v) and the\nassessee becomes the owner of the land and building thereon constructed by it.\nc. Since the assessee is owner of the building as discussed above, the assessee shall be\nliable for all the provisions of the Act in respect of the building. The property\nconstructed and remained unsold during the year, shall be liable

DY. CIT CIRCLE 3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ASIAN PAINTS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by assessee and Revenue for A

Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

house research & development facility. Therefore, we agree with the contentions of the Id. counsel for the assessee, before us that in the impugned year involved before us, the Revenue has erred in restricting the claim of weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act to the extent approved by the prescribed authority ie. DSIR. 21. The aforesaid decision

DCIT(E)-2(1), MUMBAI vs. NEHRU CENTRE, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Bledcit (E) – 2(1) V. Nehru Centre Room No. 519, 5Th Floor Discovery Of India Building Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug 13Th Floor, Dr. Annie Besant Road Worli, Mumbai - 400018 Mumbai – 400 012 Pan: Aaatn2536J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dilip Thakkar Department By : Shri Dilipkumar Shah

35 140 (Delhi). 2) Ground of Appeal No. 2 : The Assessing Officer erred in taking the view that the receipts from hiring of property of the centre are not an income derived from property held under trust. There is no denying of the fact that the properties held by the Appellant Trust are all properties held under Trust. Hence

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

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 is inbuilt in the taxability of 5% estimated

MOHAN THANKURDAS 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

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 is inbuilt in the taxability of 5% estimated

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

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 is inbuilt in the taxability of 5% estimated

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

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 is inbuilt in the taxability of 5% estimated

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

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 is inbuilt in the taxability of 5% estimated

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

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 is inbuilt in the taxability of 5% estimated

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

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 is inbuilt in the taxability of 5% estimated

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

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

2(47)(v) and the\nassessee becomes the owner of the land and building thereon constructed by it.\nc. Since the assessee is owner of the building as discussed above, the assessee shall be\nliable for all the provisions of the Act in respect of the building. The property\nconstructed and remained unsold during the year, shall be liable

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

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

2(47)(v) and the\nassessee becomes the owner of the land and building thereon constructed by it.\nc. Since the assessee is owner of the building as discussed above, the assessee shall be\nliable for all the provisions of the Act in respect of the building. The property\nconstructed and remained unsold during the year, shall be liable

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

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

2(47)(v) and the\nassessee becomes the owner of the land and building thereon constructed by it.\nc. Since the assessee is owner of the building as discussed above, the assessee shall be\nliable for all the provisions of the Act in respect of the building. The property\nconstructed and remained unsold during the year, shall be liable

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)

house property of Rs. 86,03,116 may kindly be deleted. Ground No. 8: 7 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. Without prejudice to Ground 1& 2 above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition done by AO an amount of Rs. 2

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)

house property of Rs. 86,03,116 may kindly be deleted. Ground No. 8: 7 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. Without prejudice to Ground 1& 2 above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition done by AO an amount of Rs. 2

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)

house property of Rs. 86,03,116 may kindly be deleted. Ground No. 8: 7 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. Without prejudice to Ground 1& 2 above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition done by AO an amount of Rs. 2

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)

house property of Rs. 86,03,116 may kindly be deleted. Ground No. 8: 7 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. Without prejudice to Ground 1& 2 above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition done by AO an amount of Rs. 2

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)

house property of Rs. 86,03,116 may kindly be deleted. Ground No. 8: 7 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. Without prejudice to Ground 1& 2 above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition done by AO an amount of Rs. 2

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)

house property of Rs. 86,03,116 may kindly be deleted. Ground No. 8: 7 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. Without prejudice to Ground 1& 2 above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition done by AO an amount of Rs. 2