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 143(3) that AO after considering all the aspects disallowed expenditure by observing that expenses were incurred for earning income from house property. 13. Assessment completed u/s 153A r.w.s.143(3) on 29.12.2010 determining total income at Rs.20,85,10,410/- as against the returned income of Rs.18,51,02,165/-. Subsequently, the assessment was reopened by issue of notice

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 143(3) that AO after considering all the aspects disallowed expenditure by observing that expenses were incurred for earning income from house property. 13. Assessment completed u/s 153A r.w.s.143(3) on 29.12.2010 determining total income at Rs.20,85,10,410/- as against the returned income of Rs.18,51,02,165/-. Subsequently, the assessment was reopened by issue of notice

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 143(3) that AO after considering all the aspects disallowed expenditure by observing that expenses were incurred for earning income from house property. 13. Assessment completed u/s 153A r.w.s.143(3) on 29.12.2010 determining total income at Rs.20,85,10,410/- as against the returned income of Rs.18,51,02,165/-. Subsequently, the assessment was reopened by issue of notice

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 143(3) that AO after considering all the aspects disallowed expenditure by observing that expenses were incurred for earning income from house property. 13. Assessment completed u/s 153A r.w.s.143(3) on 29.12.2010 determining total income at Rs.20,85,10,410/- as against the returned income of Rs.18,51,02,165/-. Subsequently, the assessment was reopened by issue of notice

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 143(3) that AO after considering all the aspects disallowed expenditure by observing that expenses were incurred for earning income from house property. 13. Assessment completed u/s 153A r.w.s.143(3) on 29.12.2010 determining total income at Rs.20,85,10,410/- as against the returned income of Rs.18,51,02,165/-. Subsequently, the assessment was reopened by issue of notice

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 143(3) that AO after considering all the aspects disallowed expenditure by observing that expenses were incurred for earning income from house property. 13. Assessment completed u/s 153A r.w.s.143(3) on 29.12.2010 determining total income at Rs.20,85,10,410/- as against the returned income of Rs.18,51,02,165/-. Subsequently, the assessment was reopened by issue of notice

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 143(3) that AO after considering all the aspects disallowed expenditure by observing that expenses were incurred for earning income from house property. 13. Assessment completed u/s 153A r.w.s.143(3) on 29.12.2010 determining total income at Rs.20,85,10,410/- as against the returned income of Rs.18,51,02,165/-. Subsequently, the assessment was reopened by issue of notice

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

section 22 of the IT Act states that "Rental Income" is taxable under the head "Income from House Property" if the following three conditions are satisfied a) The property should consist of any buildings or land appurtenant there to; b) The appellant should be the owner of the property; c) The property should not be used by the owner

DCIT CEN CIR 8(4), MUMBAI vs. PHOENIX MILLS LTD, MUMBAI

In the results, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Ramesh C Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 3991/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 3992/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 3993/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 3994/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) बिधम/ Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Phoenix Mills Ltd. Income Tax, 462, Senapati Bapat Vs. Central Circle-8(4), Marg, Lower Parel, 6Th Floor, Room No. 658, Mumbai-400013. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacp 3325 J (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

House Property for the captioned assessment year. During the re-opening proceeding, it was submitted that the assessee had sufficient interest free funds available with it and the same could have been said to utilized for the said purposes. Further, reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon'ble High Court, Bombay in the case of Commissioner Of Income

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 25(3), MUMBAI vs. PANKAJ ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for AY 2012

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Pankaj Enterprises, Jt. Cit Range-25(3), C/O Shankarlal Jain & Assoicates Pritashkar Bhavan, Bkc, 12, Engineer Building, 265, Vs. Bandra (E), Princess Street, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax- M/S Pankaj Enterprises, 25(3), Plot No. 1, Behind Ice Factory, Room No. 601, C-10, 6Th Floor, Vs. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bandra Mumbai-400072. Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Co No. 313/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4875/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Co No. 312/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4876/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2012-13

378 ITR 244 ( P &H) 2. Binjusari Properties P Ltd. Vs ACIT 164 TTJ 417 (Hyedearbad) Binjusari Properties P Ltd. Vs ACIT 164 TTJ 417 (Hyedearbad) Binjusari Properties P Ltd. Vs ACIT 164 TTJ 417 (Hyedearbad) 3. Dilip Anand Vazirani Vs ITO 167 TTJ 194(Bom) Dilip Anand Vazirani Vs ITO 167 TTJ 194(Bom) Dilip Anand Vazirani

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 25(3), MUMBAI vs. PANKAJ ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for AY 2012

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Pankaj Enterprises, Jt. Cit Range-25(3), C/O Shankarlal Jain & Assoicates Pritashkar Bhavan, Bkc, 12, Engineer Building, 265, Vs. Bandra (E), Princess Street, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax- M/S Pankaj Enterprises, 25(3), Plot No. 1, Behind Ice Factory, Room No. 601, C-10, 6Th Floor, Vs. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bandra Mumbai-400072. Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Co No. 313/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4875/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Co No. 312/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4876/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2012-13

378 ITR 244 ( P &H) 2. Binjusari Properties P Ltd. Vs ACIT 164 TTJ 417 (Hyedearbad) Binjusari Properties P Ltd. Vs ACIT 164 TTJ 417 (Hyedearbad) Binjusari Properties P Ltd. Vs ACIT 164 TTJ 417 (Hyedearbad) 3. Dilip Anand Vazirani Vs ITO 167 TTJ 194(Bom) Dilip Anand Vazirani Vs ITO 167 TTJ 194(Bom) Dilip Anand Vazirani

PANKAJ ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. JT CIT RG 25(3), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for AY 2012

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Pankaj Enterprises, Jt. Cit Range-25(3), C/O Shankarlal Jain & Assoicates Pritashkar Bhavan, Bkc, 12, Engineer Building, 265, Vs. Bandra (E), Princess Street, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax- M/S Pankaj Enterprises, 25(3), Plot No. 1, Behind Ice Factory, Room No. 601, C-10, 6Th Floor, Vs. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bandra Mumbai-400072. Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Co No. 313/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4875/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Co No. 312/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4876/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2012-13

378 ITR 244 ( P &H) 2. Binjusari Properties P Ltd. Vs ACIT 164 TTJ 417 (Hyedearbad) Binjusari Properties P Ltd. Vs ACIT 164 TTJ 417 (Hyedearbad) Binjusari Properties P Ltd. Vs ACIT 164 TTJ 417 (Hyedearbad) 3. Dilip Anand Vazirani Vs ITO 167 TTJ 194(Bom) Dilip Anand Vazirani Vs ITO 167 TTJ 194(Bom) Dilip Anand Vazirani

DCIT -CC-5(4), MUMBAI vs. RAGHULEELA ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

section 24(b) of the Act while computing Income from House Property. He aslo relied upon and he referred to CBDT Circular No. 28 dated 20/08/1969 which clarifies that fresh loans raised to repay the earlier loans taken on the property, then the interest paid on subsequent loan shall be allowed as deduction. There is no restriction placed

DCIT-CC-5(4), MUMBAI vs. RAGHULEELA ESTATES PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

section 24(b) of the Act while computing Income from House Property. He aslo relied upon and he referred to CBDT Circular No. 28 dated 20/08/1969 which clarifies that fresh loans raised to repay the earlier loans taken on the property, then the interest paid on subsequent loan shall be allowed as deduction. There is no restriction placed

DCIT-CC-5(4), MUMBAI vs. RAGHULEELA ESTATES PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

section 24(b) of the Act while computing Income from House Property. He aslo relied upon and he referred to CBDT Circular No. 28 dated 20/08/1969 which clarifies that fresh loans raised to repay the earlier loans taken on the property, then the interest paid on subsequent loan shall be allowed as deduction. There is no restriction placed

M/S ARENA ENTERPRISES ,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, , MUMBAI-17

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Arena Enterprise V. Pcit –Mumbai-17 Cts No. 20, Arena Space, Village Majas Room No. 120, 1St Floor Jvlr, Behind Majas Depot Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C-43 Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai - 400060 G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra(E), Mumbai - 400051 Pan: Aanfa3473E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Ms. Mrugakshi Joshi Department Represented By : Shri Jagadish Jangid

Property. Thus, the Computation of Income discloses all allowable/disallowable which are correctly computed and offered for income. 2. Interest paid to Partners B. It is mentioned in the notice that the assessee firm has paid interest to partners at the rate of 18% pa. whereas as per the Partnership Deed, para 17 mentions that it is agreed by and between

DIMPLE ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result this appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

section 23(5) amendment is prospective. Learned CIT(A) further observed as under :- 5.4. It is important to note here that while deciding the issue raised in the case of Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd., the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also discussed about the judgment of the same Court in the case of East India Housing and Land Development Trust

ASST CIT 18(2), MUMBAI vs. LAXMI FINANCE & LEASING COMPANIES COMMERICAL PREMISES CO OP SOC. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Housing Society out, it must be held the property is let, would necessitate reading words into section 23(1)(c) which do not exist. The words "where the property is let" cannot be read as "where the property is intended to be let". The provisions of a tax statute must be strictly construed. The words of a statute must