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

Bench: the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal preferred by the Assessee vide order, dated 18/05/2009. 4. Not being satisfied with the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A), the Assessee has preferred appeal before this Tribunal. The Revenue has also filed cross-appeal challenging the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A).

house property excluding the portions occupied by the Assessee for the purpose of business or profession can be computed. However, the Revenue has failed to point out corresponding provision providing for Assessment Years: 2006-2007 computation of depreciation and WDV of Block of Assets excluding the WDV of the asset let out during the relevant previous year. 7.8. We note

SHRI SANJAY SHANTILAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. JCIT, CENTRAL RANGE-8 , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is having ITA No

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Dcit-Cc 8(3), 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Jcit, Central Range-8, 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Rushabh Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Cit- Dr : Date Of Hearing 15/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/10/2022

40A(3) of the Act. CIT(A) however was of the view that these seized paper does not CIT(A) however was of the view that these seized paper does not CIT(A) however was of the view that these seized paper does not manifest cash sales but these are unaccounted cash financial manifest cash sales but these are unaccounted

SHRI SANJAY SHANTILAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL RANGE-8 (3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is having ITA No

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Dcit-Cc 8(3), 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Jcit, Central Range-8, 72-7, Kalpataru Residency Tower 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B, Sion Koliwada Road, Sion, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400022. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Rushabh Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Cit- Dr : Date Of Hearing 15/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/10/2022

40A(3) of the Act. CIT(A) however was of the view that these seized paper does not CIT(A) however was of the view that these seized paper does not CIT(A) however was of the view that these seized paper does not manifest cash sales but these are unaccounted cash financial manifest cash sales but these are unaccounted

M/S ARENA ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD, 41(4)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for stati...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

House Property', which is not allowable. As such, provisions of uch, provisions of section 40A(2)(b) of the Act are clearly applicable in respect of section 40A(2)(b) of the Act are clearly applicable in respect of section 40A(2)(b) of the Act are clearly applicable in respect of interest payment of Rs.2,19,87,072/ interest

M/S ARENA ENTERPRISES ,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 41(4)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for stati...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

House Property', which is not allowable. As such, provisions of uch, provisions of section 40A(2)(b) of the Act are clearly applicable in respect of section 40A(2)(b) of the Act are clearly applicable in respect of section 40A(2)(b) of the Act are clearly applicable in respect of interest payment of Rs.2,19,87,072/ interest

ITO 2(3)(4), MUMBAI vs. WALCHAND PEOPLE FIRST LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2543/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10)

3) of the Act, the assessee company carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). 15. Before the CIT(A), the assessee company submitted that it occupies first floor premises at ‘Construction House’ for its business since many decades and the area occupied by the assessee company is 4343 sq.ft. where its registered office is situated. The assessee company

WALCHAND PEOPLE FIRST LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO - 2(3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2543/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10)

3) of the Act, the assessee company carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). 15. Before the CIT(A), the assessee company submitted that it occupies first floor premises at ‘Construction House’ for its business since many decades and the area occupied by the assessee company is 4343 sq.ft. where its registered office is situated. The assessee company

TATA SONS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT,CIR 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

house property'. We find that the Id. AR referred to the decision rendered in group companies case of the assessee by this Tribunal in the case of Ewart Investments Ltd., vs. DCIT in ITA No.3623/Mum/2017 dated 28/02/2019 for A.Y.2012-13 wherein this issue was restored to the file of the Id. AO. The Id. AR fairly prayed for similar direction

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TATA SONS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

house property'. We find that the Id. AR referred to the decision rendered in group companies case of the assessee by this Tribunal in the case of Ewart Investments Ltd., vs. DCIT in ITA No.3623/Mum/2017 dated 28/02/2019 for A.Y.2012-13 wherein this issue was restored to the file of the Id. AO. The Id. AR fairly prayed for similar direction

M/S SANOFI INDIA LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS AVENTIS PHARMA LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT RG 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

House property. The net result would be Nill. There is no change in the tax rate for both the heads of income. Therefore, the claim of the assessee is allowed in this regard considering the above discussions. 26. With regard to Ground No. 6, Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that this ground is not pressed, accordingly the same

ACIT- 3(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. MM/S SANOFI INDIA LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS AVENTIS PHARMA LTD)., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

House property. The net result would be Nill. There is no change in the tax rate for both the heads of income. Therefore, the claim of the assessee is allowed in this regard considering the above discussions. 26. With regard to Ground No. 6, Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that this ground is not pressed, accordingly the same

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

House Property u/s. 24(b) to which the provisions of section 40A(2)(b) do not apply" which also needs verification at the end of the Assessing Officer. 10. The Ld. Pr.CIT held that, it is a clear case where the Assessing Officer has failed to make due verification and inquiries which were required in facts and circumstances

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

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

DCIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI vs. M.R. CONSTRUCTION, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

40A(3) of the Act. 28. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We find that the above disallowances are not based on any evidence i.e. the incriminating material found during the course of search. As the original assessment has not been abated, we are of the view that the issue

JAWAHAR B. PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22XC, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

40A(3) of the Act. 28. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We find that the above disallowances are not based on any evidence i.e. the incriminating material found during the course of search. As the original assessment has not been abated, we are of the view that the issue

JAWAHAR B. PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22XC, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

40A(3) of the Act. 28. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We find that the above disallowances are not based on any evidence i.e. the incriminating material found during the course of search. As the original assessment has not been abated, we are of the view that the issue

M.R. CONSTRUCTION,.,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

40A(3) of the Act. 28. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We find that the above disallowances are not based on any evidence i.e. the incriminating material found during the course of search. As the original assessment has not been abated, we are of the view that the issue