ARIHANT DEVELOPERS ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -1, KALYAN

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are\ndismissed

house property, it is submitted\nthat the apprehension of the Ld. AO is factually incorrect. It is submitted\nthat the assessee has shown the actual rent received at Rs.3,87,56,614/-\nafter claiming deduction on account of Municipal Taxes, Interest on\nborrowed capital u/s 24(b),interest on Term Loan and interest paid on\nborrowed funds. Thereafter, it claimed

ARIHANT DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -1, KALYAN

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are\ndismissed

section 24(a) of the Act. The contention of the AO that the\nassessee is carrying out an organized activity of development and\nconstruction of godowns which are held as stock-in-trade and thus, the\nrental income generated in the course of the business has to be taxed as\nbusiness income and not as income from house property

ARIHANT DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -1, KALYAN

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are\ndismissed

section 24(a) of the Act. The contention of the AO that the\nassessee is carrying out an organized activity of development and\nconstruction of godowns which are held as stock-in-trade and thus, the\nrental income generated in the course of the business has to be taxed as\nbusiness income and not as income from house property

ARIHANT DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -1 , KALYAN

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are\ndismissed

section 24(a) of the Act. The contention of the AO that the\nassessee is carrying out an organized activity of development and\nconstruction of godowns which are held as stock-in-trade and thus, the\nrental income generated in the course of the business has to be taxed as\nbusiness income and not as income from house property

COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 24(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, whereas

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Commercial Development Nfac/Ito Ward 24(1)(1), Corporation, Piramal Chambers, 6Th Floor, Vs. 703, Hariom Chambers, B-16, Lalbaug, Parel, Veera Ind. Estate Off Link Road, Mumbai-400012. Andheri (W), Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aaafc 7020 J Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2018-19 Income Tax Officer, Commercial Development Room No. 604, 6Th Floor, Corporation, Vs. Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, 703, Hariom Chambers, B-16, Parel, Veera Ind. Estate Off Link Road, Mumbai-400012. Andheri (W), Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aaafc 7020 J Appellant Respondent

1. (a). The Ld. CIT( Appeal)/The National Faceless Appeal Centre( (a). The Ld. CIT( Appeal)/The National Faceless Appeal Centre( (a). The Ld. CIT( Appeal)/The National Faceless Appeal Centre( 'NFAC') has erred in not treating the 'Captioned Property' as Stock in 'NFAC') has erred in not treating the 'Captioned Property' as Stock in 'NFAC') has erred

INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX vs. COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, whereas

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Commercial Development Nfac/Ito Ward 24(1)(1), Corporation, Piramal Chambers, 6Th Floor, Vs. 703, Hariom Chambers, B-16, Lalbaug, Parel, Veera Ind. Estate Off Link Road, Mumbai-400012. Andheri (W), Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aaafc 7020 J Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2018-19 Income Tax Officer, Commercial Development Room No. 604, 6Th Floor, Corporation, Vs. Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, 703, Hariom Chambers, B-16, Parel, Veera Ind. Estate Off Link Road, Mumbai-400012. Andheri (W), Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aaafc 7020 J Appellant Respondent

1. (a). The Ld. CIT( Appeal)/The National Faceless Appeal Centre( (a). The Ld. CIT( Appeal)/The National Faceless Appeal Centre( (a). The Ld. CIT( Appeal)/The National Faceless Appeal Centre( 'NFAC') has erred in not treating the 'Captioned Property' as Stock in 'NFAC') has erred in not treating the 'Captioned Property' as Stock in 'NFAC') has erred

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, capital gain and other sources. Assessee has filed his return of income under section 139 (1) for all these years. Subsequently search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act was carried out on 4/2/2016 in-group case. Assessee is one of the person covered in those searches. During the course of search assessee’s statement were

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, capital gain and other sources. Assessee has filed his return of income under section 139 (1) for all these years. Subsequently search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act was carried out on 4/2/2016 in-group case. Assessee is one of the person covered in those searches. During the course of search assessee’s statement were

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, capital gain and other sources. Assessee has filed his return of income under section 139 (1) for all these years. Subsequently search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act was carried out on 4/2/2016 in-group case. Assessee is one of the person covered in those searches. During the course of search assessee’s statement were

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, capital gain and other sources. Assessee has filed his return of income under section 139 (1) for all these years. Subsequently search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act was carried out on 4/2/2016 in-group case. Assessee is one of the person covered in those searches. During the course of search assessee’s statement were

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, capital gain and other sources. Assessee has filed his return of income under section 139 (1) for all these years. Subsequently search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act was carried out on 4/2/2016 in-group case. Assessee is one of the person covered in those searches. During the course of search assessee’s statement were

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, capital gain and other sources. Assessee has filed his return of income under section 139 (1) for all these years. Subsequently search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act was carried out on 4/2/2016 in-group case. Assessee is one of the person covered in those searches. During the course of search assessee’s statement were

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, capital gain and other sources. Assessee has filed his return of income under section 139 (1) for all these years. Subsequently search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act was carried out on 4/2/2016 in-group case. Assessee is one of the person covered in those searches. During the course of search assessee’s statement were

SIR RATAN TATA TRUST,MUMBAI SUBURBAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in both AY 2014-15 and AY

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

House, 24, National Faceless Assessment Homi Mody Street, Fort, Centre-2(1), Vs. Mumbai-400001 MTNL Tele Building, PAN : AAATS1013P Cumballa Hills, Peddar Road, Mumbai-400026. Appellant) : Respondent) Appellant/Assessee by : Shri P. J. Pardiwala a/w Shri Sukhsagar Syal, AR Revenue/Respondent by : Shri Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 22.07.2024 Date of Pronouncement 26.08.2024 : Per Padmavathy S, AM: 1. These

SIR RATAN TATA TRUST,MUMBAI SUBURBAN vs. ADDITIONAL /JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NFAC, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in both AY 2014-15 and AY

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

House, 24, National Faceless Assessment Homi Mody Street, Fort, Centre-2(1), Vs. Mumbai-400001 MTNL Tele Building, PAN : AAATS1013P Cumballa Hills, Peddar Road, Mumbai-400026. Appellant) : Respondent) Appellant/Assessee by : Shri P. J. Pardiwala a/w Shri Sukhsagar Syal, AR Revenue/Respondent by : Shri Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 22.07.2024 Date of Pronouncement 26.08.2024 : Per Padmavathy S, AM: 1. These

GLORY SHIPMANAGEMENT PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A), NFAC DELHI, DELHI

Accordingly, Ground no 2 is dismissed

Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "G" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 3149/MUM/2023 (Assessment Year: 2018-2019) Glory Shipmanagement Private Limited, 504, Abhay Steel House, 22 Baroda Street, Masjid (East), Mumbai - 400009 [PAN: AACCG2684H] ...... Appellant Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Centralized Processing Centre, Delhi Vs .......... .... Respondent Appearance For the Appellant/Assessee : None For the Responden

House, 22 Baroda Street, Masjid (East), Mumbai - 400009 [PAN: AACCG2684H] …………… Appellant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs (Appeals), Centralized Processing Centre, Delhi ……………. Respondent Appearance For the Appellant/Assessee : None For the Respondent/Department : Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule Date Conclusion of hearing : 28.12.2023 Pronouncement of order : 30.01.2024 O R D E R Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member: 1. By way of the present appeal

CLASSIC MALL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 6(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17

house property” which is not in dispute. Ld. Assessing Officer noted that assessee did not offer any income on the units which were not let out, i.e., the eight units, as required u/s. 23(1)(a) at expected reasonable rate. The details of these eight units is tabulated below: Unit No. Area Current Trading Brand 3 Classic Mall Development Company

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

Housing Finance Ltd.(supra) the Hon'ble Delhi High Court again following the decision rendered in the case Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT(supra) and the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of South Indian Bank Ltd. (supra) held that no disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act is warranted where shares are held as stock-in-trade

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-2(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

Housing Finance Ltd.(supra) the Hon'ble Delhi High Court again following the decision rendered in the case Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT(supra) and the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of South Indian Bank Ltd. (supra) held that no disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act is warranted where shares are held as stock-in-trade