ASST CIT CEN CIR 29, MUMBAI vs. SHAH RUKH KHAN, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri N.K.Pradhan, Am Dy. Commissoner Of Income-Tax, Shri Shah Rukh Khan Central Circle-4(2), Mumbai 44-Mannat, B.J. Road, Band बिधम/ (Erstwhile Assistant Commissioner Of Income Stand, Bandra (West), Tax, Central Circle-29, Mumbai) Mumbai-400 050. Vs. R. No. 1918, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aahpk3293L (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

house property. The ld. D.R submitted that as the addition made in respect of the variation of the annual lettable value of the property was on the basis of the figure provided by the assessee on the basis of a valuation report procured by him, therefore, it could safely be concluded that neither the issue nor the quantification

ITO WD 3(4), THANE vs. UDAY KASHINATH SATHE, THANE

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer, Shri Uday Kashinath Sathe, Ward-3(4), 403,404, Happy Valley Phase बनाम/ Room No.9, B-Wing, Vi, Manpada, Vs. 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, Nr. Tikujiniwadi, Wagle Estate, Thane-400604 Thane(W)-400604 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Adups7623L

property Whether the release by the other coparceners could be taken as ';purchase'; for the purpose of granting relief under section 54(1) of the Act to that coparcener in whose favour the release is effected. The Supreme Court answered this question in favour of the assessee in extending the benefit of section 54. In the case of Sri Rajaram

ITO 26(1)(5), MUMBAI vs. GOPE G. SHAHANI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G Manjunatha, Am

397. In the case before the Andhra Pradesh High Court, the assessee had paid a substantial purchase instalment and secured possession of the property within one year of the sale of her residential property, but the sale deed in respect of the property so purchased by her was executed and registered after the expiry of one year. The Andhra Pradesh

ABALABBA DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO-12(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

House Property. 3. Aggrieved the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). Before the CIT(A), the assessee contended that family settlement does not amount to transfer and that the addition cannot be made under section 69/69B of the Act. The assessee further submitted that the addition cannot be made under section 2(24) since the impugned transaction

SHYAMM MARIWALA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD -6(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shyamm Mariwala, Ito Ward-6(3)(3), 216, Vasan Udyog Bhavan, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Senapati Bapat Marg, Mumbai-400013. Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Advpm 4940 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Subhash Chhajed, Ar : Revenue By Mr. R.N. D’Souza, Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22/12/2022

397/- for Rs.30,03,417/- for calculation u/r 8D. for calculation u/r 8D. b. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the b. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the b. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

MRS. CHANDA RUNWAL,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2018-19

397/- u/s 54 of the Act for the purchase of residential house property numbered as T-6/1402 (Runwal Greens), however, denied the exemption claimed by the Assessee u/s 54F of the Act, for the residential property i.e. T-1502(Runwal Greens), mainly on the following reasons: “That all the provisions i.e. a(i), a(ii) & a(iii) of section

ACIT 6(3), MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

House Property\", after claiming\ndeduction under section 24 of the Act. In this regard, it is pertinent to\nnote that the property in question forms part of the block of assets since\nthe assessment year 1987-88 and the depreciation on the entire block\nwas also allowed. The Revenue has also not disputed this fact. It is\nsettled that once

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 6(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

House Property”, after claiming\ndeduction under section 24 of the Act. In this regard, it is pertinent to\nnote that the property in question forms part of the block of assets since\nthe assessment year 1987-88 and the depreciation on the entire block\nwas also allowed. The Revenue has also not disputed this fact. It is\nsettled that once

DCIT(E)-2(1), MUMBAI vs. NEHRU CENTRE, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Bledcit (E) – 2(1) V. Nehru Centre Room No. 519, 5Th Floor Discovery Of India Building Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug 13Th Floor, Dr. Annie Besant Road Worli, Mumbai - 400018 Mumbai – 400 012 Pan: Aaatn2536J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dilip Thakkar Department By : Shri Dilipkumar Shah

section of Income Tax Act 1961 applicable to the charitable trust. The Service Tax is applicable to a Charitable Trust in case of services which are availed of. That by itself cannot make the activities of the trust as commercial activity. A charitable trust has also to deduct tax at source from several payments including salary to staff as required

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 6(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. ESSAR POWER GUJARAT LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, Ground No.1 of the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sandeep Gosainआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 397/Mum/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14)

house property. Likewise, a company may have income from other sources. It may buy shares and get dividends. Such dividends will be taxable under section 56. The company may also, as in this case, keep the surplus fund in short-term deposits in order to earn interest. Such interests will be chargeable under section 56. In the instant case

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 6(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. ESSAR POWER TRANSMISSION COMPANY LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, Ground No.1 of the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sandeep Gosainआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 397/Mum/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14)

house property. Likewise, a company may have income from other sources. It may buy shares and get dividends. Such dividends will be taxable under section 56. The company may also, as in this case, keep the surplus fund in short-term deposits in order to earn interest. Such interests will be chargeable under section 56. In the instant case

MAHARASHTRA HOUSING & AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Us:

Housing & Area Development Authority Vs. Dy. DIT (Exemption)-1(1) (xv) Does ii sell properties by inviting bids and allotting the property on the basis of a draw of lots rather than allotting the properties by holding an auction which would ensure the receipt of the highest price? (xvi) Does the Institution sell its properties primarily to the economically less

NERKA CHEMICALS P. LTD,GUJRAT vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 38, MUMBAI

In the result this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Accountant Mamber & Shri Pawan Singh

397 (Bom). It was further submitted that amendment in Memorandum of Association and Article of Association of donor companies was made in order to validate the gift to the assessee. The assessee entered into gamut of transaction which was shown as re-organization of the group but the real motive was something different. The apparent was not real

COASTAL GUJARAT POWER LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 6(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./ I.T.A. No 2298/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11) Coastal Gujarat Power Limited, The Income Tax Officer 34, Sant Tukaram Road, 6(2)(1), फनाभ/ Carnac Bunder, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400009 M K Road, Mumbai-400020 अऩीराथी की ओय से / Applicant By : Shri Farrokh V Irani प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri M C Omi Ningshen सुनवाई की तायीख /Date Of Hearing : 14.12.2016 घोषणा की तायीख /Date Of : 15.3.2017 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, A. M: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee & Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld.Cit(A), Mumbai, Dated25.2.2015 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The First Ground Raised By The Assessee Is Against Upholding The Order Of Assessing Officer As Regards Interest Income From Securities Deposited With Paschim Gujarat Vij Co.Ltd (Hereinafter Referred To As Pgvcl) For Availing Electricity For The Purposes Of Construction Of Power

house property, it could also setup another line of business, it might even pay dividends out of this income to its shareholders. There was no overriding title of anybody diverting the income at source to pay the amount to the creditors of the company. It is well-settled that tax is attracted at the point when the income is earned

DCIT CEN CIR 1(4), MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue and the assessee are partly allowed, and the additional ground of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

house property. Deduction allowable, as per the provision of section 24 of the Act, Grasim Industries Ltd. the assessee cannot be allowed depreciation in addition to this deduction. No depreciation can be allowed on a let-out property. The Ld. CIT(A), in the assessee’s own case for AY 2008-09 and the earlier assessment year, has upheld

DCIT-CC-7(3), MUMBAI , MUMBAI vs. SHRI MAJNI KARAMSHI PATEL, MUMBAI

In the result, the cross objections of the assessee and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyal, Accountat Member Dcit, Cc-7(3) Vs. Shri Manji Karamshi Room No. 655, Patel Aayakar Bhavan, Office No. 1, Patel M.K.Road, Bhavan-29, Vijaywadi, Mumbai.-400020. Dr. Nagindas N Shah Lane Chira Bazar, Mumbai – 400002. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpp0130D Appellant .. Respondent Co No. 45/Mum/2021 (A.Y: 2014-15) Shri Manji Karamshi Vs. Dcit, Cc-7(3) Patel Room No. 655, Aayakar Office No. 1, Patel Bhavan, Bhuvan-29, Vijaywadi, M.K .Road, Dr. Nagindas N Shah Mumbai-400002. Lane Chira Bazar, Mumbai – 400002. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpp0130D Appellant .. Respondent

house property and income from other sources. The assessee has filed the return of income for the A.Y 2014-15 on 28.11.2014 disclosing a total income of Rs. 61,68,670/- and the return of income was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. There was search and seizure operations conducted in the case of Lotus/ Kamdhenu / Green Valley group

CRICKET CLUB OF INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT 1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Us:-

397 employees, only 14 attend the three immovable properties consisting of the Club Chambers, North Stand Building, and Stadium House. It may be presumed that the buildings which are let out for use as shops and offices are part of the Stadium House; but there 'is nothing to show how many of these employees are employed in the work connected

SHANTILAL H. KARANI,MUMBAI vs. CIT 22, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri C.N. Prasadshantilal H. Karani, Vs. Cit-22, Prop. M/S. Malde Capacitors Mfg. Co. Mumbai. 401, Madhav Apartment, Jawahar Road, Ghatkopar (East), Mumbai.

house property at Rs. 362/-, which according to the assessee is the annual ratable value. On careful examination, we find that since the Assessing Officer has not examined this 4 Assessment Year: 2009-10 aspect of the matter nor the assessee has shown the ratable value in the return filed, the direction given by the ld. CIT in this respect

DY. CIT CIRCLE 3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ASIAN PAINTS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by assessee and Revenue for A

Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

house research & development facility. Therefore, we agree with the contentions of the Id. counsel for the assessee, before us that in the impugned year involved before us, the Revenue has erred in restricting the claim of weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act to the extent approved by the prescribed authority ie. DSIR. 21. The aforesaid decision