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 23(1) of the Act and not as 7% of cost of 7% of cost of the properties, which is wrong and contrary to the facts the properties, which is wrong and contrary to the facts the properties, which is wrong and contrary to the facts of the case and provisions of the Income

ICICI SECURITIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI -4, MUMBAI

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

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

House, Mumbai-4 Prabhadevi, S.O. Mumbai-400 025 PAN/GIR No.AAAC10996E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Riken Shah Revenue by Ms. Kavita Kaushik (Sr.DR) Date of Hearing 21/11/2025 Date of Pronouncement 06/01/2026 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 28.03.2025 passed by the learned Principal

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)

37,504). The revenue comprised two components namely "Rental Income" & others. The revenue from the rentals had been considered under the income from house property. The income offered under the House 29 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. property was at Rs 53.67 crores and the balance revenue of Rs. 86.98 crores from the other than rental. Thus the ratio

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)

37,504). The revenue comprised two components namely "Rental Income" & others. The revenue from the rentals had been considered under the income from house property. The income offered under the House 29 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. property was at Rs 53.67 crores and the balance revenue of Rs. 86.98 crores from the other than rental. Thus the ratio

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)

37,504). The revenue comprised two components namely "Rental Income" & others. The revenue from the rentals had been considered under the income from house property. The income offered under the House 29 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. property was at Rs 53.67 crores and the balance revenue of Rs. 86.98 crores from the other than rental. Thus the ratio

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)

37,504). The revenue comprised two components namely "Rental Income" & others. The revenue from the rentals had been considered under the income from house property. The income offered under the House 29 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. property was at Rs 53.67 crores and the balance revenue of Rs. 86.98 crores from the other than rental. Thus the ratio

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)

37,504). The revenue comprised two components namely "Rental Income" & others. The revenue from the rentals had been considered under the income from house property. The income offered under the House 29 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. property was at Rs 53.67 crores and the balance revenue of Rs. 86.98 crores from the other than rental. Thus the ratio

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)

37,504). The revenue comprised two components namely "Rental Income" & others. The revenue from the rentals had been considered under the income from house property. The income offered under the House 29 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. property was at Rs 53.67 crores and the balance revenue of Rs. 86.98 crores from the other than rental. Thus the ratio

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)

37,504). The revenue comprised two components namely "Rental Income" & others. The revenue from the rentals had been considered under the income from house property. The income offered under the House 29 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. property was at Rs 53.67 crores and the balance revenue of Rs. 86.98 crores from the other than rental. Thus the ratio

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)

37,504). The revenue comprised two components namely "Rental Income" & others. The revenue from the rentals had been considered under the income from house property. The income offered under the House 29 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. property was at Rs 53.67 crores and the balance revenue of Rs. 86.98 crores from the other than rental. Thus the ratio

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)

37,504). The revenue comprised two components namely "Rental Income" & others. The revenue from the rentals had been considered under the income from house property. The income offered under the House 29 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. property was at Rs 53.67 crores and the balance revenue of Rs. 86.98 crores from the other than rental. Thus the ratio

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

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

1) of the IT Act.\n4. On the other hand, ld. DR relied on the order of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the\ncase of Ansal Housing Finance & Leasing Co. Ltd., 354 ITR 180 (Delhi) in support of\nthe proposition that even in respect of unsold flats by the developer is liable to be\ntaxed as income from house

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

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

1) of the IT Act.\n4. On the other hand, ld. DR relied on the order of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the\ncase of Ansal Housing Finance & Leasing Co. Ltd., 354 ITR 180 (Delhi) in support of\nthe proposition that even in respect of unsold flats by the developer is liable to be\ntaxed as income from house

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

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

1) of the IT Act.\n4. On the other hand, ld. DR relied on the order of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the\ncase of Ansal Housing Finance & Leasing Co. Ltd., 354 ITR 180 (Delhi) in support of\nthe proposition that even in respect of unsold flats by the developer is liable to be\ntaxed as income from house

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

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

1) of the IT Act.\n4. On the other hand, ld. DR relied on the order of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the\ncase of Ansal Housing Finance & Leasing Co. Ltd., 354 ITR 180 (Delhi) in support of\nthe proposition that even in respect of unsold flats by the developer is liable to be\ntaxed as income from house

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

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

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) property is 39/103 at FAM cooperative housing society, the income from property was estimated at ₹ 16,207/– at the rate of 5% of the total cost of property, (2) and (3) shop number 7, 10 was considered on the basis of the deemed rent offered by the assessee for assessment year 2016 – 17 at ₹ 83,306/– for each