DIWALI CAPITAL & FINANCE PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT -CC- 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singhaayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3107/Mum/2018 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2013-14) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3108/Mum/2018 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2014-15)

43(5) is A, then transactions covered in Explanation to section 73 A+B. All purchase and sale of shares of other companies are Deemed Speculation, Exemptions to Certain Companies: - Since all types of purchase and sale of shares of other companies are deemed- considered speculative transactions for the purpose of setting of losses, only escape is to those companies

DIWALI CAPITAL & FINANCE PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- CC-2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singhaayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3107/Mum/2018 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2013-14) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3108/Mum/2018 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2014-15)

43(5) is A, then transactions covered in Explanation to section 73 A+B. All purchase and sale of shares of other companies are Deemed Speculation, Exemptions to Certain Companies: - Since all types of purchase and sale of shares of other companies are deemed- considered speculative transactions for the purpose of setting of losses, only escape is to those companies

DCIT , CC- 8(1), MUMBAI vs. NIRSHILP SECURITIES PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

House-A-19 M.K.Road, Mumbai Veera Desai Road Maharashtra-400 020 Andheri (W) Mumbai – 400 058 Maharashtra PAN/GIR No.AABCN4361M (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Revenue by Shri Rahul Raman Assessee by Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Shri Vijay Mehta Date of Hearing 11/05/2021 Date of Pronouncement 21/06/2021 M/s. Nirhsilp Commodities Pvt. Ltd., आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M): This appeal

MOHAN THANKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

house property. ii. With respect to the deduction of Municipal taxes, there is no requirement for reducing the income of the assessee where the learned assessing officer has estimated the percentage of the cost of the equity as rate of return on the investment. In fact, the deduction of municipal taxes is inbuilt in the taxability of 5% estimated

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

house property. ii. With respect to the deduction of Municipal taxes, there is no requirement for reducing the income of the assessee where the learned assessing officer has estimated the percentage of the cost of the equity as rate of return on the investment. In fact, the deduction of municipal taxes is inbuilt in the taxability of 5% estimated

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

house property. ii. With respect to the deduction of Municipal taxes, there is no requirement for reducing the income of the assessee where the learned assessing officer has estimated the percentage of the cost of the equity as rate of return on the investment. In fact, the deduction of municipal taxes is inbuilt in the taxability of 5% estimated

MOHAN GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRLE - 5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

house property. ii. With respect to the deduction of Municipal taxes, there is no requirement for reducing the income of the assessee where the learned assessing officer has estimated the percentage of the cost of the equity as rate of return on the investment. In fact, the deduction of municipal taxes is inbuilt in the taxability of 5% estimated

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

house property. ii. With respect to the deduction of Municipal taxes, there is no requirement for reducing the income of the assessee where the learned assessing officer has estimated the percentage of the cost of the equity as rate of return on the investment. In fact, the deduction of municipal taxes is inbuilt in the taxability of 5% estimated

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

house property. ii. With respect to the deduction of Municipal taxes, there is no requirement for reducing the income of the assessee where the learned assessing officer has estimated the percentage of the cost of the equity as rate of return on the investment. In fact, the deduction of municipal taxes is inbuilt in the taxability of 5% estimated

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

house property. ii. With respect to the deduction of Municipal taxes, there is no requirement for reducing the income of the assessee where the learned assessing officer has estimated the percentage of the cost of the equity as rate of return on the investment. In fact, the deduction of municipal taxes is inbuilt in the taxability of 5% estimated

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)

43. We have considered rival contentions and gone through the orders of the authorities below. With respect to the first property, Boulevard we found that this premise was used by the assessee for its own business purpose as a godown for storing records. Charging section 22 leaves out the property which assessee occupies for the purposes of any business

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)

43. We have considered rival contentions and gone through the orders of the authorities below. With respect to the first property, Boulevard we found that this premise was used by the assessee for its own business purpose as a godown for storing records. Charging section 22 leaves out the property which assessee occupies for the purposes of any business

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)

43. We have considered rival contentions and gone through the orders of the authorities below. With respect to the first property, Boulevard we found that this premise was used by the assessee for its own business purpose as a godown for storing records. Charging section 22 leaves out the property which assessee occupies for the purposes of any business

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)

43. We have considered rival contentions and gone through the orders of the authorities below. With respect to the first property, Boulevard we found that this premise was used by the assessee for its own business purpose as a godown for storing records. Charging section 22 leaves out the property which assessee occupies for the purposes of any business

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)

43. We have considered rival contentions and gone through the orders of the authorities below. With respect to the first property, Boulevard we found that this premise was used by the assessee for its own business purpose as a godown for storing records. Charging section 22 leaves out the property which assessee occupies for the purposes of any business

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)

43. We have considered rival contentions and gone through the orders of the authorities below. With respect to the first property, Boulevard we found that this premise was used by the assessee for its own business purpose as a godown for storing records. Charging section 22 leaves out the property which assessee occupies for the purposes of any business

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)

43. We have considered rival contentions and gone through the orders of the authorities below. With respect to the first property, Boulevard we found that this premise was used by the assessee for its own business purpose as a godown for storing records. Charging section 22 leaves out the property which assessee occupies for the purposes of any business

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)

43. We have considered rival contentions and gone through the orders of the authorities below. With respect to the first property, Boulevard we found that this premise was used by the assessee for its own business purpose as a godown for storing records. Charging section 22 leaves out the property which assessee occupies for the purposes of any business