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)

House 29 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. property was at Rs 53.67 crores and the balance revenue of Rs. 86.98 crores from the other than rental. Thus the ratio of the „Rental Income‟ to the „income other than rentals‟ is 38.16%. 57. It was contended by learned AR that the accounting and management system of the assessee was developed

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)

House 29 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. property was at Rs 53.67 crores and the balance revenue of Rs. 86.98 crores from the other than rental. Thus the ratio of the „Rental Income‟ to the „income other than rentals‟ is 38.16%. 57. It was contended by learned AR that the accounting and management system of the assessee was developed

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)

House 29 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. property was at Rs 53.67 crores and the balance revenue of Rs. 86.98 crores from the other than rental. Thus the ratio of the „Rental Income‟ to the „income other than rentals‟ is 38.16%. 57. It was contended by learned AR that the accounting and management system of the assessee was developed

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)

House 29 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. property was at Rs 53.67 crores and the balance revenue of Rs. 86.98 crores from the other than rental. Thus the ratio of the „Rental Income‟ to the „income other than rentals‟ is 38.16%. 57. It was contended by learned AR that the accounting and management system of the assessee was developed

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)

House 29 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. property was at Rs 53.67 crores and the balance revenue of Rs. 86.98 crores from the other than rental. Thus the ratio of the „Rental Income‟ to the „income other than rentals‟ is 38.16%. 57. It was contended by learned AR that the accounting and management system of the assessee was developed

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)

House 29 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. property was at Rs 53.67 crores and the balance revenue of Rs. 86.98 crores from the other than rental. Thus the ratio of the „Rental Income‟ to the „income other than rentals‟ is 38.16%. 57. It was contended by learned AR that the accounting and management system of the assessee was developed

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)

House 29 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. property was at Rs 53.67 crores and the balance revenue of Rs. 86.98 crores from the other than rental. Thus the ratio of the „Rental Income‟ to the „income other than rentals‟ is 38.16%. 57. It was contended by learned AR that the accounting and management system of the assessee was developed

MRS ALKA PANDEY,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -25(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Mrs. Alka Pandey, Asst. Cit-25(2), Maitri – Plot No. 10, Jvpd Scheme, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Vs. Vile Parle (West), Bandra (East), Mumbai-400049. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Agepp 1076 H Appellant Respondent

Section 24(a) for income from house property. Instead, it is taxed as income for income from house property. Instead, it is taxed as income for income from house property. Instead, it is taxed as income from services rendered, which has different tax implications. om services rendered, which has different tax implications.” om services rendered, which has different tax implications

DCIT CEN CIR 8(4), MUMBAI vs. PHOENIX MILLS LTD, MUMBAI

In the results, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Ramesh C Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 3991/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 3992/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 3993/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 3994/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) बिधम/ Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Phoenix Mills Ltd. Income Tax, 462, Senapati Bapat Vs. Central Circle-8(4), Marg, Lower Parel, 6Th Floor, Room No. 658, Mumbai-400013. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacp 3325 J (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

Section 14A, and is only to the extent of disallowing expenditure "incurred by the assessee in relation to the tax exemrjt income". This proportion or portion of the tax exempt income surely cannot swallow the entire amount as has happened in this case. 14.6. In view of the above judicial pronouncements, we do not find any infirmity in the order

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)

House Property’ in respect of the rent received by it u/s 22 of the Act , since the assessment year 2004-05. The assessee company relied upon the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s ITA 2543/M/13 & ITA No. 3527/M/13 26 & C.O. 156/Mum/2014 Sahney Kirkwood Private Limited v. Addl

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)

House Property’ in respect of the rent received by it u/s 22 of the Act , since the assessment year 2004-05. The assessee company relied upon the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s ITA 2543/M/13 & ITA No. 3527/M/13 26 & C.O. 156/Mum/2014 Sahney Kirkwood Private Limited v. Addl

SUN ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. ITO 14(3)(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ramlal Negi

Section 23 for the purpose of determining its Annual Value. H cannot be construed to mean that any owned business property even if out for a temporary period would not be taxable u/s 22. Relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shambhu Investment (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT (2003) 263ITR 143 (SC,. I observe that

RAMESH DUNGARSHI SHAH,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INOCME TAX, CIRCLE-3, , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri. Girish Agarwal, Am Ramesh Dungarshi Shah Deputy Commissioner Of Income 108, Shreedhar Apartment, Maulana Tax, Circle – 3, Kalyan Vs. 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, Murbad Azad Road, Dombivali, East, Thane – 421201. Road, Kalyan West – 421301. Pan/Gir No. Aavps0931K (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Devendra Jain, Adv. (Virtually) : Shri. Asif Karmali (Sr. Dr) Respondent By : 14.02.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 14.05.2025 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short) Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ For Short) 2015-16. 2. It Is Observed That The Assessee Has Filed This Present Appeal With A Delay Of 47 Days Beyond The Period Of Limitation For Which The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condoning The Delay Along With The Reasons Specified For The Delay. After Hearing The Rival Contentions, We Deem It Fit To Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal For The Reason That There Was ‘Sufficient Cause’ & Bonafide Reasons For The Delay. Delay Condoned.

house property by Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court into case of CIT vs. Sane and Doshi Enterprises (2015) 377 ITR 165/ 232 taxmann.com 452 Bombay and in the case of CIT vs. Gundecha Builders (2019) 102 taxmann.com 27 (Bombay), the deemed rental on flats lying vacant would also be covered by the Provisions of Section

ASST CIT 17(3), MUMBAI vs. SIROYA HOLDING, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

section 22 of the Act which read as under: - “22. The annual value of property consisting of any buildings or lands appurtenant thereto of which the assessee is the owner, other than such portions of such property as he may occupy for the purpose of any business or profession carried on by him the profits of which are chargeable

ASST CIT 17(3), MUMBAI vs. SIROYA HOLDING, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

section 22 of the Act which read as under: - “22. The annual value of property consisting of any buildings or lands appurtenant thereto of which the assessee is the owner, other than such portions of such property as he may occupy for the purpose of any business or profession carried on by him the profits of which are chargeable

NATIONAL STOCK EXCHANGE OF INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIR-7(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result ground no.1 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed and grounds no

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.730 & 731/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18) National Stock Exchange Vs. Dcit, Circle 7(1)(1) Of India Limited Room No. 126, 1 St Floor, Exchange Plaza, Bandra Aaykar Bhavan, Kurla Complex, Bandra M.K. Road, East, Mumbai – 400051 Churchgate -400 020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacn1797L Appellant .. Respondent

House Property: 36. Similar issue on identical facts have been adjudicated in ground no. 3 vide ITA No. 730/Mum/2023 as supra in this order, therefore, applying these findings mutatis mutandis this ground of appeal of the assessee is also allowed for statistical purpose. Ground No. 2: 37. The assessee has suo moto disallowed the expenses of Rs.2,08,72,452

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

PERSIL EMBROIDERIES PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-RANGE 7, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singh

452 Health Care Ltd. in respect of letting out Oberoi Woods Accommodation property TOTAL Rs. 8,97,052 The assessee in its reply contended that order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. It was further contended that the rent from Oberoi Woods Accommodation Property of Rs. 5,21,451/- has not been included under the head