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)

65. The Assessing Officer disallowed out of total claim the payment made to M/s. Jones Lang Lasalle Meghraj Property Consultants Pvt. Ltd. amounting to Rs. 1,17,45,666/. Out of the other expenses of Rs. 3,11,45,604/-, Assessing Officer proportionately disallowed in the ration of 38.16%, which works out to Rs. 1,18,85,162/-. Thus

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)

65. The Assessing Officer disallowed out of total claim the payment made to M/s. Jones Lang Lasalle Meghraj Property Consultants Pvt. Ltd. amounting to Rs. 1,17,45,666/. Out of the other expenses of Rs. 3,11,45,604/-, Assessing Officer proportionately disallowed in the ration of 38.16%, which works out to Rs. 1,18,85,162/-. Thus

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)

65. The Assessing Officer disallowed out of total claim the payment made to M/s. Jones Lang Lasalle Meghraj Property Consultants Pvt. Ltd. amounting to Rs. 1,17,45,666/. Out of the other expenses of Rs. 3,11,45,604/-, Assessing Officer proportionately disallowed in the ration of 38.16%, which works out to Rs. 1,18,85,162/-. Thus

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)

65. The Assessing Officer disallowed out of total claim the payment made to M/s. Jones Lang Lasalle Meghraj Property Consultants Pvt. Ltd. amounting to Rs. 1,17,45,666/. Out of the other expenses of Rs. 3,11,45,604/-, Assessing Officer proportionately disallowed in the ration of 38.16%, which works out to Rs. 1,18,85,162/-. Thus

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)

65. The Assessing Officer disallowed out of total claim the payment made to M/s. Jones Lang Lasalle Meghraj Property Consultants Pvt. Ltd. amounting to Rs. 1,17,45,666/. Out of the other expenses of Rs. 3,11,45,604/-, Assessing Officer proportionately disallowed in the ration of 38.16%, which works out to Rs. 1,18,85,162/-. Thus

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)

65. The Assessing Officer disallowed out of total claim the payment made to M/s. Jones Lang Lasalle Meghraj Property Consultants Pvt. Ltd. amounting to Rs. 1,17,45,666/. Out of the other expenses of Rs. 3,11,45,604/-, Assessing Officer proportionately disallowed in the ration of 38.16%, which works out to Rs. 1,18,85,162/-. Thus

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)

65. The Assessing Officer disallowed out of total claim the payment made to M/s. Jones Lang Lasalle Meghraj Property Consultants Pvt. Ltd. amounting to Rs. 1,17,45,666/. Out of the other expenses of Rs. 3,11,45,604/-, Assessing Officer proportionately disallowed in the ration of 38.16%, which works out to Rs. 1,18,85,162/-. Thus

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)

65. The Assessing Officer disallowed out of total claim the payment made to M/s. Jones Lang Lasalle Meghraj Property Consultants Pvt. Ltd. amounting to Rs. 1,17,45,666/. Out of the other expenses of Rs. 3,11,45,604/-, Assessing Officer proportionately disallowed in the ration of 38.16%, which works out to Rs. 1,18,85,162/-. Thus

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)

65. The Assessing Officer disallowed out of total claim the payment made to M/s. Jones Lang Lasalle Meghraj Property Consultants Pvt. Ltd. amounting to Rs. 1,17,45,666/. Out of the other expenses of Rs. 3,11,45,604/-, Assessing Officer proportionately disallowed in the ration of 38.16%, which works out to Rs. 1,18,85,162/-. Thus

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 9 of the Income Tax Act.”\n23. We may observe that the decision in East India Housing (supra)\nwas considered by the Supreme Court in the decision in Chennai\nProperties & Investments Ltd. (supra) wherein the appellant\nassessee was a company incorporated under the Companies Act with\nmain objective, as contained in the Memorandum of Association, to\nacquire the properties

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 9 of the Income Tax Act.”\n23. We may observe that the decision in East India Housing (supra)\nwas considered by the Supreme Court in the decision in Chennai\nProperties & Investments Ltd. (supra) wherein the appellant\nassessee was a company incorporated under the Companies Act with\nmain objective, as contained in the Memorandum of Association, to\nacquire the properties

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 9 of the Income Tax Act.”\n23. We may observe that the decision in East India Housing (supra)\nwas considered by the Supreme Court in the decision in Chennai\nProperties & Investments Ltd. (supra) wherein the appellant\nassessee was a company incorporated under the Companies Act with\nmain objective, as contained in the Memorandum of Association, to\nacquire the properties

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 9 of the Income Tax Act.”\n23. We may observe that the decision in East India Housing (supra)\nwas considered by the Supreme Court in the decision in Chennai\nProperties & Investments Ltd. (supra) wherein the appellant\nassessee was a company incorporated under the Companies Act with\nmain objective, as contained in the Memorandum of Association, to\nacquire the properties

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, the learned AO has incriminating material available with him. Therefore, there is no infirmity in making the addition so far as incriminating material is concerned. 023. Before us, assessee has submitted [1] three paper books, [2] one compilation of various judicial precedents wherein 11 judicial precedents were relied upon and [3] 69-page fact sheet to support

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, the learned AO has incriminating material available with him. Therefore, there is no infirmity in making the addition so far as incriminating material is concerned. 023. Before us, assessee has submitted [1] three paper books, [2] one compilation of various judicial precedents wherein 11 judicial precedents were relied upon and [3] 69-page fact sheet to support

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, the learned AO has incriminating material available with him. Therefore, there is no infirmity in making the addition so far as incriminating material is concerned. 023. Before us, assessee has submitted [1] three paper books, [2] one compilation of various judicial precedents wherein 11 judicial precedents were relied upon and [3] 69-page fact sheet to support

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, the learned AO has incriminating material available with him. Therefore, there is no infirmity in making the addition so far as incriminating material is concerned. 023. Before us, assessee has submitted [1] three paper books, [2] one compilation of various judicial precedents wherein 11 judicial precedents were relied upon and [3] 69-page fact sheet to support

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, the learned AO has incriminating material available with him. Therefore, there is no infirmity in making the addition so far as incriminating material is concerned. 023. Before us, assessee has submitted [1] three paper books, [2] one compilation of various judicial precedents wherein 11 judicial precedents were relied upon and [3] 69-page fact sheet to support