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

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-2(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

Housing Finance Ltd.(supra) the Hon'ble Delhi High Court again following the decision rendered in the case Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT(supra) and the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of South Indian Bank Ltd. (supra) held that no disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act is warranted where shares are held as stock-in-trade

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

Housing Finance Ltd.(supra) the Hon'ble Delhi High Court again following the decision rendered in the case Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT(supra) and the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of South Indian Bank Ltd. (supra) held that no disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act is warranted where shares are held as stock-in-trade

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

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

house property' is defined in Section 27 of the Act which includes\ncertain situations where a person not actually the owner shall be treated as\ndeemed owner of a building or part thereof. In the present case, the appellant\nis held to be “deemed owner” of the property in question by virtue of Section\n27(iiib

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

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

house property' is defined in Section 27 of the Act which includes\ncertain situations where a person not actually the owner shall be treated as\ndeemed owner of a building or part thereof. In the present case, the appellant\nis held to be “deemed owner” of the property in question by virtue of Section\n27(iiib

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

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

house property' is defined in Section 27 of the Act which includes\ncertain situations where a person not actually the owner shall be treated as\ndeemed owner of a building or part thereof. In the present case, the appellant\nis held to be “deemed owner” of the property in question by virtue of Section\n27(iiib

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Housing Finance Ltd.(supra) the Hon'ble Delhi High Court again following the decision rendered in the case Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT(supra) and the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of South Indian Bank Ltd. (supra) held that no disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act is warranted where shares are held as stock-in-trade

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. THE NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Housing Finance Ltd.(supra) the Hon'ble Delhi High Court again following the decision rendered in the case Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT(supra) and the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of South Indian Bank Ltd. (supra) held that no disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act is warranted where shares are held as stock-in-trade

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)

36,366 may kindly be deleted. Without prejudice to Ground 18& 2 above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the allocation done by AO of additional sum of Rs. 86,03,116 out of repairs and maintenance expenditure to the income from house property, ignoring

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)

36,366 may kindly be deleted. Without prejudice to Ground 18& 2 above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the allocation done by AO of additional sum of Rs. 86,03,116 out of repairs and maintenance expenditure to the income from house property, ignoring

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)

36,366 may kindly be deleted. Without prejudice to Ground 18& 2 above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the allocation done by AO of additional sum of Rs. 86,03,116 out of repairs and maintenance expenditure to the income from house property, ignoring

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)

36,366 may kindly be deleted. Without prejudice to Ground 18& 2 above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the allocation done by AO of additional sum of Rs. 86,03,116 out of repairs and maintenance expenditure to the income from house property, ignoring

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)

36,366 may kindly be deleted. Without prejudice to Ground 18& 2 above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the allocation done by AO of additional sum of Rs. 86,03,116 out of repairs and maintenance expenditure to the income from house property, ignoring

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)

36,366 may kindly be deleted. Without prejudice to Ground 18& 2 above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the allocation done by AO of additional sum of Rs. 86,03,116 out of repairs and maintenance expenditure to the income from house property, ignoring

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)

36,366 may kindly be deleted. Without prejudice to Ground 18& 2 above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the allocation done by AO of additional sum of Rs. 86,03,116 out of repairs and maintenance expenditure to the income from house property, ignoring

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)

36,366 may kindly be deleted. Without prejudice to Ground 18& 2 above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the allocation done by AO of additional sum of Rs. 86,03,116 out of repairs and maintenance expenditure to the income from house property, ignoring

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)

36,366 may kindly be deleted. Without prejudice to Ground 18& 2 above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the allocation done by AO of additional sum of Rs. 86,03,116 out of repairs and maintenance expenditure to the income from house property, ignoring

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

section 68 of the income tax act the main submission of the assessee are as under:- i. The loan received by the assessee from sunrise Asian Ltd of ₹ 40 lakhs on 30/9/2013 is a genuine loan and out of the accounted source of the lender company. ITA No. 2089, 709 to 713 & 718 Mum/2023