VAIJANTHI MAHAVIR OZA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(IT)-3(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5799/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) बिाम/ Vaijanthi Mahavir Oza, Income Tax Officer- C/O. Chhajed & Doshi, (International Taxation)- 101, Hubtown Solaris, 3(3)(1) V. N.S Phadke Marg, Room No. 1628, Near East West Flyover, 16Th Floor Andheri (E), Air India Building Mumbai- 400069 Mumbai स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Abepo5631J (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Piyush Chhajjed Revenue By: Miss. Deepika Arora (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 09.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.04.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 5799/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 23.06.2017, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-57, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2014-15, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 23.12.2016 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2014-15. I.T.A. No.5799/Mum/2017

1 16 (under the head 'deductions from salaries salaries 2 Income from 22 24 (under the head 'Deductions from house property income from house property ) 3 Profits and gains 28 29 (under the head 'Income from profits of business or and gains of business or profession, how profession computed'). Section 29 provides that it has to be computed in accordance

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

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)

1) can be made only when the assessee while computing the total income, claims any expenditure which is or can be said to be attributable for earning of the exempt income i.e. income which do not form part of the total income. Such a disallowance can be made/quantified in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) of section

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)

1) can be made only when the assessee while computing the total income, claims any expenditure which is or can be said to be attributable for earning of the exempt income i.e. income which do not form part of the total income. Such a disallowance can be made/quantified in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) of section

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)

1) can be made only when the assessee while computing the total income, claims any expenditure which is or can be said to be attributable for earning of the exempt income i.e. income which do not form part of the total income. Such a disallowance can be made/quantified in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) of section

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)

1) can be made only when the assessee while computing the total income, claims any expenditure which is or can be said to be attributable for earning of the exempt income i.e. income which do not form part of the total income. Such a disallowance can be made/quantified in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) of section

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)

1) can be made only when the assessee while computing the total income, claims any expenditure which is or can be said to be attributable for earning of the exempt income i.e. income which do not form part of the total income. Such a disallowance can be made/quantified in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) of section

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)

1) can be made only when the assessee while computing the total income, claims any expenditure which is or can be said to be attributable for earning of the exempt income i.e. income which do not form part of the total income. Such a disallowance can be made/quantified in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) of section

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)

1) can be made only when the assessee while computing the total income, claims any expenditure which is or can be said to be attributable for earning of the exempt income i.e. income which do not form part of the total income. Such a disallowance can be made/quantified in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) of section

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)

1) can be made only when the assessee while computing the total income, claims any expenditure which is or can be said to be attributable for earning of the exempt income i.e. income which do not form part of the total income. Such a disallowance can be made/quantified in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) of section

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)

1) can be made only when the assessee while computing the total income, claims any expenditure which is or can be said to be attributable for earning of the exempt income i.e. income which do not form part of the total income. Such a disallowance can be made/quantified in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) of section

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

NERKA CHEMICALS P. LTD,GUJRAT vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 38, MUMBAI

In the result this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Accountant Mamber & Shri Pawan Singh

56(1), held that transaction of transfer of share to assessee is covered within the purview of section 2(22)(a), holding it that distribution of share by DHPL of accumulated substantial capital asset to the assessee, who is one of its shareholder along with family member of Shroff family. 38. The Income Tax Act does not define the term

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 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