MMTIS EDUCTION & RESEARCH TRUST,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) I(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed partly for allowed partly for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Mmti’S Education & Research Trust, The Dy. Director Of Income- New Excel House, 2Nd Floor, 41-B, Tax(Exemption)-I(1), Vs. Azad Nagar Road No. 2, Off. Veera 5Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Desai Road, Behind Icici Bank, Parel, Lalbaug, Andheri (West), Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aabtm 2192 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Mmti’S Education & Research Trust, Ito(E)-2(1), New Excel House, 2Nd Floor, 41-B, Income-Tax Office, Piramal Vs. Azad Nagar Road No. 2, Off. Veera Chambers, Parel, Mumbai- Desai Road, Behind Icici Bank, 12. Andheri (West), Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aabtm 2192 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Mmti’S Education & Research Trust, Ito(E)-2(1), Victor House, 2Nd Floor, End Of Veera Income-Tax Office, Piramal Vs. Desai Road, Next To Chitralekha Chambers, Parel, Mumbai- House, Andheri (W), 12. Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aabtm 2192 E Appellant Respondent

House, Andheri (W), 12. Mumbai-400053. PAN No. AABTM 2192 E Appellant Respondent MMTI’s Education & Research Trust MMTI’s Education & Research Trust ITA Nos. 5866/M/2015, 451/M/2019 & 2974/M/2017 Assessee by : Ms. Arati Vissanji, Adv & Ms. Arati Vissanji, Adv & Mr. AmodPrabhudesai, Mr. AmodPrabhudesai, Revenue by : Mr. Manish Ajudiya, Date of Hearing Date of Hearing : 14/06/2023 : Date of pronouncement Date of pronouncement

MMTI'S EDUCATION & RESEARCH TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E) 2 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed partly for allowed partly for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Mmti’S Education & Research Trust, The Dy. Director Of Income- New Excel House, 2Nd Floor, 41-B, Tax(Exemption)-I(1), Vs. Azad Nagar Road No. 2, Off. Veera 5Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Desai Road, Behind Icici Bank, Parel, Lalbaug, Andheri (West), Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aabtm 2192 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Mmti’S Education & Research Trust, Ito(E)-2(1), New Excel House, 2Nd Floor, 41-B, Income-Tax Office, Piramal Vs. Azad Nagar Road No. 2, Off. Veera Chambers, Parel, Mumbai- Desai Road, Behind Icici Bank, 12. Andheri (West), Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aabtm 2192 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Mmti’S Education & Research Trust, Ito(E)-2(1), Victor House, 2Nd Floor, End Of Veera Income-Tax Office, Piramal Vs. Desai Road, Next To Chitralekha Chambers, Parel, Mumbai- House, Andheri (W), 12. Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aabtm 2192 E Appellant Respondent

House, Andheri (W), 12. Mumbai-400053. PAN No. AABTM 2192 E Appellant Respondent MMTI’s Education & Research Trust MMTI’s Education & Research Trust ITA Nos. 5866/M/2015, 451/M/2019 & 2974/M/2017 Assessee by : Ms. Arati Vissanji, Adv & Ms. Arati Vissanji, Adv & Mr. AmodPrabhudesai, Mr. AmodPrabhudesai, Revenue by : Mr. Manish Ajudiya, Date of Hearing Date of Hearing : 14/06/2023 : Date of pronouncement Date of pronouncement

R. KUNDAN & CO.,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 14(3)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Property Acquisition Investment 1 50% share in House 14/09/1992 2,00,000/- Remittance Jamuna Apartment, (share of A-Rs from abroad Flat No.92, Boring 1,00,000/-) Road, P.S. S.K. Puri, Patna-13 2 Flat No.44, House No. 09/06/1995 7500000/- N-6A, (Seven hundred Staronavodnytskaya fifty million Street apt. 44 KYIV karbovantes) Ukraine) 3 50% share in House- 18/11/1996 Rs.15

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’. Section 23 provides the mechanism to compute the annual letting value (ALV) of the property. Section 23(1)(a) provides for determining the ALV at a sum for which the property might reasonably 9 Classic Mall Development Company Limited, AY 2016-17 be expected to let from year to year. The sum so referred is a fair estimate

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

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

SUMAN P KHURANA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed accordingly

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2415/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Suman P. Khurana बिधम/ Acit, Central Circle-3(2) Room No.402, 4Th Floor, 501, Raheja Centre, Free Press Vs. Journal Marg, Nariman Point, Aayakar Bhawan, Maharshi Mumbai-400021. Karve Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020.S स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aahpk0190Q (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Shekhar Gupta Revenue By: Shri Hoshang B. Irani सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 24/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 21.02.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -51, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2012- 13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On The Facts Of The Case In Estimating The Annual Value Of The Property At Maker Chambers Iv, Nariman Point, Mumbai At Rs.82,86,301/- As Against Nil Declared By The Assessee & Denying The Exemption Claimed U/S 23(1)(C) By The Assessee. A.Y. 2012-13 2. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On The Facts Of The Case In Estimating The Value Of The Property At Gujranwala Town, Delhi At Rs.6,60,000/- As Against Nil Declared By The Assessee & Denying The Exemption Claimed U/S 23(1)(C) By The Assessee.

1) if we 6 A.Y. 2012-13 see the combined reading of Sub-section (2) and (4) of Section 23. One thing is more important because we find that where the legislature have considered that actual letting out is required, they have used the words 'house is actually let'. This can be seen in Sub- section (3) of same Section

CHANDRU K MIRCHANDANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 14(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainshri Chandru K. Mirchandani Income Tax Officer-14(3)(3) C/O. Sorabi Hormusji & Co. 6Th Floor, Earnest House Vs. 22, Mangaldas Road Nariman Point Mumbai 400002 Mumbai 400021 Pan – Aftpm3209F Appellant Respondent

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The AO vide order dated 27.09.2013 levied penalty of `9,29,562/- on four additions/disallowances aggregating to `25,31,284/- which are listed hereunder: - `10,29,364/- (i) Income from House Property on Mehar-Dad Property `5,68,761/- (ii) Difference on Income from House Property of Hari Niwas property `6

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)

c) of the Act with regard to the addition 5 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. upheld by the Tribunal for less than 10% of the alleged expenses, on estimate basis. 6. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed. ITA No. 48, 49,50,51,52,241 &242/Mum/2015 7. These are appeals of the assessee against

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)

c) of the Act with regard to the addition 5 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. upheld by the Tribunal for less than 10% of the alleged expenses, on estimate basis. 6. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed. ITA No. 48, 49,50,51,52,241 &242/Mum/2015 7. These are appeals of the assessee against

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)

c) of the Act with regard to the addition 5 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. upheld by the Tribunal for less than 10% of the alleged expenses, on estimate basis. 6. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed. ITA No. 48, 49,50,51,52,241 &242/Mum/2015 7. These are appeals of the assessee against

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)

c) of the Act with regard to the addition 5 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. upheld by the Tribunal for less than 10% of the alleged expenses, on estimate basis. 6. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed. ITA No. 48, 49,50,51,52,241 &242/Mum/2015 7. These are appeals of the assessee against

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)

c) of the Act with regard to the addition 5 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. upheld by the Tribunal for less than 10% of the alleged expenses, on estimate basis. 6. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed. ITA No. 48, 49,50,51,52,241 &242/Mum/2015 7. These are appeals of the assessee against

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)

c) of the Act with regard to the addition 5 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. upheld by the Tribunal for less than 10% of the alleged expenses, on estimate basis. 6. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed. ITA No. 48, 49,50,51,52,241 &242/Mum/2015 7. These are appeals of the assessee against

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)

c) of the Act with regard to the addition 5 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. upheld by the Tribunal for less than 10% of the alleged expenses, on estimate basis. 6. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed. ITA No. 48, 49,50,51,52,241 &242/Mum/2015 7. These are appeals of the assessee against

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)

c) of the Act with regard to the addition 5 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. upheld by the Tribunal for less than 10% of the alleged expenses, on estimate basis. 6. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed. ITA No. 48, 49,50,51,52,241 &242/Mum/2015 7. These are appeals of the assessee against

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)

c) of the Act with regard to the addition 5 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. upheld by the Tribunal for less than 10% of the alleged expenses, on estimate basis. 6. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed. ITA No. 48, 49,50,51,52,241 &242/Mum/2015 7. These are appeals of the assessee against

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