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 (2) of section 14A. In other words, disallowance u/s 14A(l) can only be triggered, once the conditions laid down under sub- section (2) are satisfied. To work out the disallowance under Rule 8D(2) 52 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. and for its. quantification, the Assessing Officer has to first examine the accounts of the assessee and also

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 (2) of section 14A. In other words, disallowance u/s 14A(l) can only be triggered, once the conditions laid down under sub- section (2) are satisfied. To work out the disallowance under Rule 8D(2) 52 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. and for its. quantification, the Assessing Officer has to first examine the accounts of the assessee and also

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 (2) of section 14A. In other words, disallowance u/s 14A(l) can only be triggered, once the conditions laid down under sub- section (2) are satisfied. To work out the disallowance under Rule 8D(2) 52 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. and for its. quantification, the Assessing Officer has to first examine the accounts of the assessee and also

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 (2) of section 14A. In other words, disallowance u/s 14A(l) can only be triggered, once the conditions laid down under sub- section (2) are satisfied. To work out the disallowance under Rule 8D(2) 52 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. and for its. quantification, the Assessing Officer has to first examine the accounts of the assessee and also

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 (2) of section 14A. In other words, disallowance u/s 14A(l) can only be triggered, once the conditions laid down under sub- section (2) are satisfied. To work out the disallowance under Rule 8D(2) 52 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. and for its. quantification, the Assessing Officer has to first examine the accounts of the assessee and also

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 (2) of section 14A. In other words, disallowance u/s 14A(l) can only be triggered, once the conditions laid down under sub- section (2) are satisfied. To work out the disallowance under Rule 8D(2) 52 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. and for its. quantification, the Assessing Officer has to first examine the accounts of the assessee and also

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 (2) of section 14A. In other words, disallowance u/s 14A(l) can only be triggered, once the conditions laid down under sub- section (2) are satisfied. To work out the disallowance under Rule 8D(2) 52 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. and for its. quantification, the Assessing Officer has to first examine the accounts of the assessee and also

VAIJANTHI MAHAVIR OZA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(IT)-3(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5799/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) बिाम/ Vaijanthi Mahavir Oza, Income Tax Officer- C/O. Chhajed & Doshi, (International Taxation)- 101, Hubtown Solaris, 3(3)(1) V. N.S Phadke Marg, Room No. 1628, Near East West Flyover, 16Th Floor Andheri (E), Air India Building Mumbai- 400069 Mumbai स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Abepo5631J (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Piyush Chhajjed Revenue By: Miss. Deepika Arora (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 09.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.04.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 5799/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 23.06.2017, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-57, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2014-15, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 23.12.2016 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2014-15. I.T.A. No.5799/Mum/2017

Section 54/54F of the 1961 Act wherein deduction for the investments in the residential house property shall be only allowed if residential property is situated in India, vide Finance Act 2014 w.e.f. 01.04.2015. Thus it was submitted that this condition of investing in residential property situated in India has been imposed w.e.f. assessment year 2015-16 and the impugned assessment

ACIT 4(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. THE NEW PIECE GOODS BAZAR CO. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the Revenues’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

section 2(14). The bundle of rights acquired by the assessee are undoubtedly valuable in terms of money. In our view, the said tenancy rights shall from part of a capital asset in the hands of the assessee and, therefore, any gain arising therefrom would be assessable under the head “Income from capital gains eligible for deduction

RANJEET D VASWANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 12(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10

392 (Bom) and Realty Finance & Leasing (P) Ltd. vs. ITO (2006) 5 SOT 348 (Mum). 6. The learned DR submits that the Act clearly mentions that while calculating the income from house property, only certain allowable deductions are to be allowed u/s 23 and 24 of the Act. What specific deductions are to be allowed in computing the income under

DHANO B VASWANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 12(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10

392 (Bom) and Realty Finance & Leasing (P) Ltd. vs. ITO (2006) 5 SOT 348 (Mum). 6. The learned DR submits that the Act clearly mentions that while calculating the income from house property, only certain allowable deductions are to be allowed u/s 23 and 24 of the Act. What specific deductions are to be allowed in computing the income under

RAK CONSTRUCTION PROJECT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO 3 (3)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

house property. On the basis of such information received in assessment year 2012– 13, the Assessing Officer has re–opened the assessment under section 147 of the Act in the impugned assessment year. We do not find any legal infirmity in the action of the Assessing Officer in re–opening the assessment under section 147 of the Act. When

SHEBA PROPERTIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (OSD) 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 660 To 664/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2012-13) Tata Motors Finance Limited Dy. Cit (Osd), 2(3) 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, (Formerly Known As Sheba Properties बनाम/ Limited) M. K. Marg, Mumbai -400 020 10Th Floor, 106A & B, Maker Chambers Vs. Iii, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaecs 0591 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 699 To 703/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2012-13, 2008-09, 2011-12) Dy. Cit, Circle-2(3)(2), Tata Motors Finance Limited Room No. 552, 5Th Floor, (Formerly Known As Sheba बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Marg, Properties Limited) 3Rd Floor, Nanavati Mahalaya, 18 Mumbai -400 020 Vs. Homi Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaecs 0591 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. R. Vohra & Shri Nikhil Tiwari ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri V. Justin

392/-. Similarly, for A.Y.2009-10, the AO has vide order u/s.144 r.w.s.147 of the Act dated 07.03.2014 assessed the ALV of the house property @8% of the extrapolated market value of Rs.7,79,30,523/- i.e.Rs.62,34,442/-. 4.3 In respect of reassessment, the appellant has contested that it had submitted the relevant details regarding income from house property

DCIT 2(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. SHEBA PROPERTIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 660 To 664/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2012-13) Tata Motors Finance Limited Dy. Cit (Osd), 2(3) 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, (Formerly Known As Sheba Properties बनाम/ Limited) M. K. Marg, Mumbai -400 020 10Th Floor, 106A & B, Maker Chambers Vs. Iii, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaecs 0591 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 699 To 703/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2012-13, 2008-09, 2011-12) Dy. Cit, Circle-2(3)(2), Tata Motors Finance Limited Room No. 552, 5Th Floor, (Formerly Known As Sheba बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Marg, Properties Limited) 3Rd Floor, Nanavati Mahalaya, 18 Mumbai -400 020 Vs. Homi Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaecs 0591 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. R. Vohra & Shri Nikhil Tiwari ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri V. Justin

392/-. Similarly, for A.Y.2009-10, the AO has vide order u/s.144 r.w.s.147 of the Act dated 07.03.2014 assessed the ALV of the house property @8% of the extrapolated market value of Rs.7,79,30,523/- i.e.Rs.62,34,442/-. 4.3 In respect of reassessment, the appellant has contested that it had submitted the relevant details regarding income from house property

SHREE BAL PROPERTIES & FINANCE P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT 2, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodm/S Shree Bal Properties & Finance P. Ltd Pr. Commissioner Of Income-Tax -2, 4, Buona Case, Sir P.M Road, Room No. 344, 3Rd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan Vs. Opp. Kashmir Arts Emporium, M.K Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Fort, Mumbai - 400 001. Pan –Aaccs1776N M/S Shree Bal Properties & Finance P. Ltd Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax 2(3)(2), 4, Buona Case, Sir P.M Road, Room No. 552, Aaykar Bhavan Vs. Opp. Kashmir Arts Emporium, M.K Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Fort, Mumbai - 400 001. Pan – Aaccs1776N Appellant By: S/Shri Mihir Naniwadekar & Kalpesh Turalkar, A.Rs Respondent By: S/Shri Salil Mishra, Cit D.R & V.Vinod Kumar, D.R Date Of Hearing: 04.03.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.06.2020

section 48, be deemed to be the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of such transfer. Admittedly, in the present case the stamp duty qua the transfer of the property in question was paid on a Shree Bal Properties and Finance P. Ltd. Vs ACIT- 2(3)(2), Mumbai

ANOOPKUMAR DEVIDAS RAIMALANI,MUM vs. AC CIRCLE-18(1), MUM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

house property" and so submits that the said flat constitutes as business property of the Appellant and therefore, action of AO is erroneous. And for such a preposition, he relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. New India Maritime Agencies (P.) Ltd. [1994] 207 ITR 392 (Madras). In view

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

MANJU RAKESH JAIN,MUMBAI vs. PCIT, MUMBAI-20, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Manju Rakesh Jain, Pcit, Mumbai-20 704-A, Highland Park, Lokhanwala 418, 4Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Complex, Andheri West, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400058. Mumbai-400012. Pan No. Aaepj 9613 N Appellant Respondent

392/- to HDFC Overdraft account. It is also noted to HDFC Overdraft account. It is also noted to HDFC Overdraft account. It is also noted that the loans were received from Bajaj Housing Finance and the loans were received from Bajaj Housing Finance and the loans were received from Bajaj Housing Finance and HDFC against house property. Therefore, interests paid