SKYLINE PRASHASTI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 22(2)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Assessment Year: 2010-11

457/- separately under the head "Income from other sources" instead of netting with interest payable as done by your appellant. 3 ITA No.69/M/2013 & Ors. M/s. Sky Star 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) erred in affirming the decision of the Assessing Officer for disallowing Rs.14, 45,965/- u/s 43B. 6. The appellant craves

DCIT 22(2), NAVI MUMBAI vs. SKY STAR, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Assessment Year: 2010-11

457/- separately under the head "Income from other sources" instead of netting with interest payable as done by your appellant. 3 ITA No.69/M/2013 & Ors. M/s. Sky Star 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) erred in affirming the decision of the Assessing Officer for disallowing Rs.14, 45,965/- u/s 43B. 6. The appellant craves

DIPTI NALIN PARIKH,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD - 17(1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri M Balaganeshdipti Nalin Parikh, Crescent Bay T4 Apt. 3103-3104, Near, Parel Bhoiwada, Opp. Cancer Society, Jeerabai Wadai Road, Parel (E), Mumbai-400012 Pan: Aabpp5053F ............ Appellant Vs. Ito-17(1)(4), 115, 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400020 ............ Respondent

property (hereafter in this 13 ITA No. 3274 Mum 2019-Dipti Nalin Parikh section referred to as the original asset), and the assessee has within a period of one year before or two years after the date on which the transfer took place purchased, or has within a period of three years after that date 3 constructed, one residential house

ASST CIT 18(2), MUMBAI vs. LAXMI FINANCE & LEASING COMPANIES COMMERICAL PREMISES CO OP SOC. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Housing Society out, it must be held the property is let, would necessitate reading words into section 23(1)(c) which do not exist. The words "where the property is let" cannot be read as "where the property is intended to be let". The provisions of a tax statute must be strictly construed. The words of a statute must

DCIT 2 2 1, MUMBAI vs. M S LUVISH INFOTECH PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue bearing ITA

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjeedcit (2)(2)(1), Mumbai Vs M/S Luvish Infotech Projects 5Th Room No.545, Floor, Private Limited, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Cts 102/2, Sani Armaa, Raut Lane, Mumbai-400 020 Juhu, Vile Parle West, Mumbai-400 049 Pan : Aadcm4966H Appellant Respondent

House Property", and other income and interest income of Rs.44,05,252/- were assessed under "Income from Other Sources", the Ld. AO disallowed the claim of interest expenses amounting to Rs.21,52,380/-. The assessee failed to substantiate that the said interest expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for earning the other income, as required under section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -23(1), MUMBAI vs. LAXMI FINANCE AND LEASING COMPANIES CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue and Cross

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

house had not actually been let during the whole or any part of the previous year. As a legal fiction is created the word "actually", as used in section 23(3)(c), does not find mention in section 23(1) of the Act. 12. The construction placed on section 23(l)(c), by Sri B. Chandrasen Reddy, learned counsel

DCIT- 8(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. PIRAMAL ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

property; and (ii) the deduction under section 24(b) of the Act cannot be allowed on the basis of area let out. In our view, the reasons on the basis of which the Assessing Officer disallowed deduction under section 24(b) of the Act are unacceptable. Undisputedly, the loan was sanctioned for construction of the entire building. When a part

AMAZIA DEVELOPERS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT-1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

house property’ then the addition would be Rs. 8,24,80,457/- (being 30% deduction of Rs 11,78,29,224/- would be Rs. 3,53,48,676/-). The ld. Pr. Commissioner can revise the assessment order if there is loss to the 6 Amazia Developers Pvt Ltd revenue by the order of the assessing officer. In the present case

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-23(1) , MUMBAI vs. M/S LAXMI FINANCE & LEASING COMPANIES COMMERCIAL PREMISES CO-OP SOC. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit – 23(1) V. M/S. Laxmi Finance & Leasing Companies Commercial Premises Room No. 113, 1St Floor Co-Op. Soc., Limited Matru Mandir, Tardev Road C-25, G-Block, Mumbai – 400 007 Laxmi Towers, Near Icici Bank Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (E), Mumbai -400051 Pan: Aabal0964G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Madhur Agrawal Department Represented By : Shri Manoj Sinha

house had not actually been let during the whole or any part of the previous year. As a legal fiction is created the word "actually", as used in section 23(3)(c), does not find mention in section 23(1) of the Act. 12. The construction placed on section 23(l)(c), by Sri B. Chandrasen Reddy, learned counsel

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX -23(1), MUMBAI vs. LAXMI FINANCE AND LEASING COMPANY CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue and Cross\nObjections of the assessee are dismissed

house had not actually been let during\nthe whole or any part of the previous year. As a legal\nfiction is created the word "actually", as used in section\n23(3)(c), does not find mention in section 23(1) of the Act.\n12. The construction placed on section 23(1)(c), by Sri B.\nChandrasen Reddy, learned counsel

RUPALI BHAVESH GANDHI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 38, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by assessee for all AYs are allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singh

House Property for the relevant assessment was found or seized. Thus, no addition can be made against the assessee in respect of assessment which has already been finalised. It was argued that the assessment under section 143(2) was completed on 07.12.2009. It is settled law that no addition in the concluded assessment in absence of incriminating material seized

RUPALI BHAVESH GANDHI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 38, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by assessee for all AYs are allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singh

House Property for the relevant assessment was found or seized. Thus, no addition can be made against the assessee in respect of assessment which has already been finalised. It was argued that the assessment under section 143(2) was completed on 07.12.2009. It is settled law that no addition in the concluded assessment in absence of incriminating material seized

DCIT CEN 5 3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

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

house property’ or ‘capital gains’ or ‘income from other sources’ but in the case of ‘capital gains’ or ‘income from other sources’ but in the case of ‘capital gains’ or ‘income from other sources’ but in the case of assessee, who is engaged in the business of insura is engaged in the business of insurance such income nce such income

DCIT CEN 5 3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

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

house property’ or ‘capital gains’ or ‘income from other sources’ but in the case of ‘capital gains’ or ‘income from other sources’ but in the case of ‘capital gains’ or ‘income from other sources’ but in the case of assessee, who is engaged in the business of insura is engaged in the business of insurance such income nce such income

DCIT CEN 5 3, MUMBAI vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

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

house property’ or ‘capital gains’ or ‘income from other sources’ but in the case of ‘capital gains’ or ‘income from other sources’ but in the case of ‘capital gains’ or ‘income from other sources’ but in the case of assessee, who is engaged in the business of insura is engaged in the business of insurance such income nce such income

DCIT CEN 5 3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

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

house property’ or ‘capital gains’ or ‘income from other sources’ but in the case of ‘capital gains’ or ‘income from other sources’ but in the case of ‘capital gains’ or ‘income from other sources’ but in the case of assessee, who is engaged in the business of insura is engaged in the business of insurance such income nce such income

HGP COMMUNITY PVT LTD (SUCCESSOR TO LAKE VIEW DEVELOPERS),MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

457/- on furniture and fixtures, Rs.1,37,942/- on interior decoration, and Rs.2,76,666/- on office equipments leased assets. Similarly, in the case of M/s. Omega Associates also assessee has claimed depreciation on similar lease assets and furniture and fixtures. These were part of the block of assets coming from the earlier 4 ITA No.903-906/Mum/2025 HGP Community

HGP COMMUNITY PVT LTD (SUCCESSOR TO LAKE VIEW DEVELOPERS),MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

457/- on furniture and fixtures, Rs.1,37,942/- on interior decoration, and Rs.2,76,666/- on office equipments leased assets. Similarly, in the case of M/s. Omega Associates also assessee has claimed depreciation on similar lease assets and furniture and fixtures. These were part of the block of assets coming from the earlier 4 ITA No.903-906/Mum/2025 HGP Community