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

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

iii) of the Rules. 8. Thereafter, in the case of PCIT vs. PNB 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

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

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

iii) of the Rules." 8. Thereafter, in the case of PCIT vs. PNB 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

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 2(1)(3), MUMBAI vs. KAMAT HOTELS INDIA LIMITED, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

36(1)(iii) of the Act ITA No. 913/Mum/2024, ITA 894-Mum-2024 & 1483/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 is deleted. Thus, Ground No. 1(a) to 1(d) raised by the Assessee are allowed and therefore Ground No.1(e) to 1(h) raised by the Assessee are dismissed as being infructuous. Ground

KAMAT HOTELS (INDIA) LIMITED,VILE PARLE MUMBAI vs. ACIT, MUMBAI MAHARASHTRA

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

36(1)(iii) of the Act ITA No. 913/Mum/2024, ITA 894-Mum-2024 & 1483/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 is deleted. Thus, Ground No. 1(a) to 1(d) raised by the Assessee are allowed and therefore Ground No.1(e) to 1(h) raised by the Assessee are dismissed as being infructuous. Ground

KAMAT HOTELS (INDIA) LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

36(1)(iii) of the Act ITA No. 913/Mum/2024, ITA 894-Mum-2024 & 1483/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 is deleted. Thus, Ground No. 1(a) to 1(d) raised by the Assessee are allowed and therefore Ground No.1(e) to 1(h) raised by the Assessee are dismissed as being infructuous. Ground

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

property and rights of the company: (m) acquiring and undertaking the whole or an part of the business of any person or company, when such business is of a nature enumerated or described in this sub-section; (n) doing all such other things as are incidental or conducive to the promotion or advancement of the business of the company

ASST CIT CIR 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

property and rights of the company: (m) acquiring and undertaking the whole or an part of the business of any person or company, when such business is of a nature enumerated or described in this sub-section; (n) doing all such other things as are incidental or conducive to the promotion or advancement of the business of the company

ACIT -893) (1) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. TRIPLE SECURITIES PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

property in question is not of the nature covered by section 50C(1) of the Act. Therefore, on this point itself, we set aside the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition.” 21. To the same effect are decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case

ASUDA HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC) , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

property no doubt, which is part of the block of assets. However, assessee has Page No. | 3 ITA.NO. 2854/MUM/2022 (A.Y: 2014-15) Asuda Holdings Private Limited incurred certain expenditure like brokerage charges of ₹.1,20,000/- and other dues pending settlement with the society amounting to ₹.1,36,140/-. He submitted that these are all genuine expenses connected with

SUMAN GUPTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - CC- 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2015

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Ita Nos. 3860 & 3859/Mum/2018 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Smt. Suman Gupta, Dy. Cit Cc-4(2), 6Th New Harileela House, Air India Building, 19Th Mint Road, Fort, Vs. Floor, Room No. 1918, Mumbai-400 001. Nariman Point, Mumbai-21. Pan No. Ahqpg 0220 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Bhupendra Karkhanis & Mr. Aakash Marthak & Mr. Vijay Bhatt, Ars Revenue By : Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 02/03/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 27/04/2023 Order

section 132(4) of the IT Act, he IT Act, this amount of jewellery is offered to this amount of jewellery is offered to tax. Smt. Suman Gupta ITA Nos. 3860 & 3859/M/2018 7.2. The submission of the assessee is considered but not 7.2. The submission of the assessee is considered but not 7.2. The submission of the assessee is considered

INCLINE REALTY PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -4(1), MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

property and not in the business of investments/trading in shares. Therefore, the Assessing Officer concluded that the interest paid on funds utilized for the purpose of investment cannot be attributed to the business of the Assessee and hence, deduction for the same as business expenditure cannot be 3 Assessment Year 2015-2016 allowed under Section 36(1)(iii

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

house property’ and not ‘income from business’ and hence, the provisions of Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act towards

DCIT CENT. CIR. -7(3), MUMBAI vs. PALAVA DWELLERS PVT. LTD. , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Bledy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. M/S. Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle – 7(3) 412, 71-G, Vardhman Chamber Room No. 655, 6Th Floor C.P. Road, Horniman Circle Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Fort, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aabcl1117D (Appellant) (Respondent) Lodha Developers Limited Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. {Since Merged M/S. Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd.,} Central Circle – 7(3) 412, 4Th Floor, 17G, Vardhman Chamber Room No. 655, 6Th Floor Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Fort, Mumbai - 400 001 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aabcl1117D (Appellant) (Respondent)

36(1)(iii) of the Act, disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act, disallowance of business promotion expenses. Apart from these disallowances the Assessing Officer considered even the suomoto adjustments i.e., the disallowance of ₹.4.0572 crores as made by the assessee in its revised return of income for disallowance while computing the income by the Assessing Officer. This shows the Assessing

LODHA DEVELOPERS LTD(FORMERLY KNOWN AS LODHA DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Bledy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. M/S. Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle – 7(3) 412, 71-G, Vardhman Chamber Room No. 655, 6Th Floor C.P. Road, Horniman Circle Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Fort, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aabcl1117D (Appellant) (Respondent) Lodha Developers Limited Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. {Since Merged M/S. Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd.,} Central Circle – 7(3) 412, 4Th Floor, 17G, Vardhman Chamber Room No. 655, 6Th Floor Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Fort, Mumbai - 400 001 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aabcl1117D (Appellant) (Respondent)

36(1)(iii) of the Act, disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act, disallowance of business promotion expenses. Apart from these disallowances the Assessing Officer considered even the suomoto adjustments i.e., the disallowance of ₹.4.0572 crores as made by the assessee in its revised return of income for disallowance while computing the income by the Assessing Officer. This shows the Assessing

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