STATE BANK OF MYSORE,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

housing in India. On perusal of the findings of the coordinate bench in assessee's own case for earlier years on the impugned issue we notice that this issue has been allowed on the ground that the principal of consistency should be followed and that the assessee's claim from AY 2008-09 following the same methodology has not been

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

6, the income which accrues or arises to him outside India shall not be so included unless it is derived from a business controlled in or a profession set up in India. Thus, while the wording of section 5(1)(a) and 5(1)(b) is exactly similar to section 5(2) which deals with total income of non-residents

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

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

6\nITA No. 3395, 3396, 3397, 3398/Mum/2024\nΑ.Υ. 2012-13, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18\nArihant Developers, Mumbai\nout of premises and collecting rent, normally such an income is to be treated\nas income from house property, in case provisions of Section 22 of the Act are\nsatisfied with primary ingredient that the assessee is the owner

SUMAN GUPTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - CC- 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2015

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Ita Nos. 3860 & 3859/Mum/2018 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Smt. Suman Gupta, Dy. Cit Cc-4(2), 6Th New Harileela House, Air India Building, 19Th Mint Road, Fort, Vs. Floor, Room No. 1918, Mumbai-400 001. Nariman Point, Mumbai-21. Pan No. Ahqpg 0220 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Bhupendra Karkhanis & Mr. Aakash Marthak & Mr. Vijay Bhatt, Ars Revenue By : Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 02/03/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 27/04/2023 Order

House and Pune by applying a rate of 7% of cost of property of Rs. 1,44,09,475/ property of Rs. 1,44,09,475/- i.e.Rs. 10,08.663/- less Rs. 6,00,000/- offered by the appellant and reasons by the appellant and reasons assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the facts assigned for doing

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)

6: Without prejudice to Ground 1& 2 above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the allocation done by AO an amount of Rs. 2 1,36,366 out of Other Miscellaneous Expenses to the income from house property, ignoring the facts of this issue. The assessee

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)

6: Without prejudice to Ground 1& 2 above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the allocation done by AO an amount of Rs. 2 1,36,366 out of Other Miscellaneous Expenses to the income from house property, ignoring the facts of this issue. The assessee

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)

6: Without prejudice to Ground 1& 2 above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the allocation done by AO an amount of Rs. 2 1,36,366 out of Other Miscellaneous Expenses to the income from house property, ignoring the facts of this issue. The assessee

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)

6: Without prejudice to Ground 1& 2 above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the allocation done by AO an amount of Rs. 2 1,36,366 out of Other Miscellaneous Expenses to the income from house property, ignoring the facts of this issue. The assessee

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)

6: Without prejudice to Ground 1& 2 above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the allocation done by AO an amount of Rs. 2 1,36,366 out of Other Miscellaneous Expenses to the income from house property, ignoring the facts of this issue. The assessee

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)

6: Without prejudice to Ground 1& 2 above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the allocation done by AO an amount of Rs. 2 1,36,366 out of Other Miscellaneous Expenses to the income from house property, ignoring the facts of this issue. The assessee

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)

6: Without prejudice to Ground 1& 2 above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the allocation done by AO an amount of Rs. 2 1,36,366 out of Other Miscellaneous Expenses to the income from house property, ignoring the facts of this issue. The assessee

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)

6: Without prejudice to Ground 1& 2 above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the allocation done by AO an amount of Rs. 2 1,36,366 out of Other Miscellaneous Expenses to the income from house property, ignoring the facts of this issue. The assessee

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)

6: Without prejudice to Ground 1& 2 above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the allocation done by AO an amount of Rs. 2 1,36,366 out of Other Miscellaneous Expenses to the income from house property, ignoring the facts of this issue. The assessee

INCOME TAX OFFICER-25(3)(5), MUMBAI vs. NILIMA ABHIJIT TANNU, MUMBAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri G. Manjunatha, Am

6 and 11), held that from a plain reading of Sub- section (2) of Section 54 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, it is clear that only Section 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is mentioned in Section 54(2) in the context that the unutilised portion of the capital gain on the sale of property used for residence

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

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

1) property is 39/103 at FAM cooperative housing society, the income from property was estimated at ₹ 16,207/– at the rate of 5% of the total cost of property, (2) and (3) shop number 7, 10 was considered on the basis of the deemed rent offered by the assessee for assessment year 2016 – 17 at ₹ 83,306/– for each