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

section 40A(2)(b) to the Interest rate paid on Unsecured Loans, although the same are not applicable, since the deduction has been claimed u/s, 24(b) under the head Income from House Property', and consequently the order is not prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. (iii) The learned CIT has completely and erroneously ignored the fact, that

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

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

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 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

LATE SUNIL D GULATI,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -CENTRAL CIRCLE-39 , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Late Sunil D Gulati, Cit-Central Circle 39, 603, Elco Residency, Almeda Room No. 1924, 19Th Floor, Vs. Park Behind Elco Market, Air India Building, Nariman Bandra (West), Point, Churchgate, Mumbai-400050. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aehpg 8703 R Appellant Respondent

section 40A(3) Further, the AO has also invoked provisions of section 40A(3) Further, the AO has also invoked provisions of section 40A(3) of the I.T.Act and has disallowed an amount of Rs. of the I.T.Act and has disallowed an amount of Rs. of the I.T.Act and has disallowed an amount

LATE SUNIL D GULATI,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -CENTRAL CIRCLE-39, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Late Sunil D Gulati, Cit-Central Circle 39, 603, Elco Residency, Almeda Room No. 1924, 19Th Floor, Vs. Park Behind Elco Market, Air India Building, Nariman Bandra (West), Point, Churchgate, Mumbai-400050. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aehpg 8703 R Appellant Respondent

section 40A(3) Further, the AO has also invoked provisions of section 40A(3) Further, the AO has also invoked provisions of section 40A(3) of the I.T.Act and has disallowed an amount of Rs. of the I.T.Act and has disallowed an amount of Rs. of the I.T.Act and has disallowed an amount

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

ADDL CIT 8(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. SANOFI INDIA LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S. AVENTIS PHARMA LTD), MUMBAI

In the result, the C.O. of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is partly allowed

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

House Property" and allowed the claim in accordance with law. It is ordered accordingly. Adjustments made to amount claimed as deduction under section 80IB- Ground No.7 25. The AO while considering the deduction claimed by the assessee under section 80IB did not allow the claim to the extent of 30% of Rs. 10,70,852/- which was attributable to interest

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

In the result, the C.O. of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is partly allowed

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

House Property" and allowed the claim in accordance with law. It is ordered accordingly. Adjustments made to amount claimed as deduction under section 80IB- Ground No.7 25. The AO while considering the deduction claimed by the assessee under section 80IB did not allow the claim to the extent of 30% of Rs. 10,70,852/- which was attributable to interest

SANOFI INDIA LTD FORMERLY KNOWN AS AVENTIS PHARMA LTD ,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the C.O. of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is partly allowed

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

House Property" and allowed the claim in accordance with law. It is ordered accordingly. Adjustments made to amount claimed as deduction under section 80IB- Ground No.7 25. The AO while considering the deduction claimed by the assessee under section 80IB did not allow the claim to the extent of 30% of Rs. 10,70,852/- which was attributable to interest

PEGASUS PROPERTIES P. LTD.,PUNE vs. DY CIT, CC-2(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

house property’. The provisions of Section 23(4) of the Act are meant only for properties that are held as investments and not as stock in trade. We find that decision rendered by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Mangla Homes Pvt. Ltd., reported in 325 ITR 281 would not be applicable in the instant case

FERANI HOTELS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -4(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

House Property.” “1. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIMAL is right on restricting the addition of annual letting value to 2.5% instead of @7% made by AO?” 2. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in late, the CIT(A) is right in directing the AO to compute

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

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

house property\nexcluding the portions occupied by the Assessee for the purpose of\nbusiness or profession can be computed. However, the Revenue has\nfailed to point out corresponding provision providing for\ncomputation of depreciation and WDV of Block of Assets excluding\nthe WDV of the asset let out during the relevant previous year.\n7. 8. We note that Section

DCIT CIR 23(3), MUMBAI vs. SHIRISH M DALVI, MUMBAI

Accordingly, we uphold the finding of Ld CIT(A). The ground No. four of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shirish M. Dalvi, Dcit Circle-23(3), D’ Block, 1St Floor, Zojwala 3Rd Floor, C-10, Pratyaksha Vs. Complex, Sahajanand Kar Bhavan, Bandra East, Chowk, Kalyan-421 301. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadpd 0358 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit Circle-23(3), Shirish M. Dalvi, Room No. 402, 4Th Floor, C-10 D’ Block, 1St Floor, Zojwala Vs. Bldg., Pratyakshakar Complex, Sahajanand Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Chowk, Kalyan-421 301. Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadpd 0358 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shirish M. Dalvi, Dcit-29(3), D’ Block, 1St Floor, Zojwala Room No. 402, 4Th Floor, C- Vs. Complex, Sahajanand 10, Pratyaksha Kar Chowk, Kalyan-421 301. Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra, Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadpd 0358 H

40A(2)(b) of the Act etc. (ii) The receipt of ₹8,95,12,000/-on account of sale of land at Village “Dushmi” treated by the assessee as exempt being agricultural land, was rejected and receipt was held as business receipt subject to deduction of cost of expenses (₹1,00,34,111/-) incurred thereon, resulting into addition of ₹7

SHIRISH M DALVI,KALYAN vs. DCIT CIR 29(3), MUMBAI

Accordingly, we uphold the finding of Ld CIT(A). The ground No. four of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shirish M. Dalvi, Dcit Circle-23(3), D’ Block, 1St Floor, Zojwala 3Rd Floor, C-10, Pratyaksha Vs. Complex, Sahajanand Kar Bhavan, Bandra East, Chowk, Kalyan-421 301. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadpd 0358 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit Circle-23(3), Shirish M. Dalvi, Room No. 402, 4Th Floor, C-10 D’ Block, 1St Floor, Zojwala Vs. Bldg., Pratyakshakar Complex, Sahajanand Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Chowk, Kalyan-421 301. Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadpd 0358 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shirish M. Dalvi, Dcit-29(3), D’ Block, 1St Floor, Zojwala Room No. 402, 4Th Floor, C- Vs. Complex, Sahajanand 10, Pratyaksha Kar Chowk, Kalyan-421 301. Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra, Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadpd 0358 H

40A(2)(b) of the Act etc. (ii) The receipt of ₹8,95,12,000/-on account of sale of land at Village “Dushmi” treated by the assessee as exempt being agricultural land, was rejected and receipt was held as business receipt subject to deduction of cost of expenses (₹1,00,34,111/-) incurred thereon, resulting into addition of ₹7