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)

House 29 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. property was at Rs 53.67 crores and the balance revenue of Rs. 86.98 crores from the other than rental. Thus the ratio of the „Rental Income‟ to the „income other than rentals‟ is 38.16%. 57. It was contended by learned AR that the accounting and management system of the assessee was developed

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)

House 29 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. property was at Rs 53.67 crores and the balance revenue of Rs. 86.98 crores from the other than rental. Thus the ratio of the „Rental Income‟ to the „income other than rentals‟ is 38.16%. 57. It was contended by learned AR that the accounting and management system of the assessee was developed

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)

House 29 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. property was at Rs 53.67 crores and the balance revenue of Rs. 86.98 crores from the other than rental. Thus the ratio of the „Rental Income‟ to the „income other than rentals‟ is 38.16%. 57. It was contended by learned AR that the accounting and management system of the assessee was developed

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)

House 29 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. property was at Rs 53.67 crores and the balance revenue of Rs. 86.98 crores from the other than rental. Thus the ratio of the „Rental Income‟ to the „income other than rentals‟ is 38.16%. 57. It was contended by learned AR that the accounting and management system of the assessee was developed

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)

House 29 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. property was at Rs 53.67 crores and the balance revenue of Rs. 86.98 crores from the other than rental. Thus the ratio of the „Rental Income‟ to the „income other than rentals‟ is 38.16%. 57. It was contended by learned AR that the accounting and management system of the assessee was developed

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)

House 29 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. property was at Rs 53.67 crores and the balance revenue of Rs. 86.98 crores from the other than rental. Thus the ratio of the „Rental Income‟ to the „income other than rentals‟ is 38.16%. 57. It was contended by learned AR that the accounting and management system of the assessee was developed

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)

House 29 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. property was at Rs 53.67 crores and the balance revenue of Rs. 86.98 crores from the other than rental. Thus the ratio of the „Rental Income‟ to the „income other than rentals‟ is 38.16%. 57. It was contended by learned AR that the accounting and management system of the assessee was developed

ACIT 28 (2), MUMBAI vs. SMT. PUNITA SANJAY BIDRA , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Acit-28(2), Smt. Punita Sanjay Bindra, Room No. 307, 3Rd Floor, Tower 505-506, Kesar Solitaire, 5Th Vs. No. 6, Vashi Railway Station Floor, Sanpada, Plot No. 5, Complex, Vashi, Sector-19, Navi Mumbai-400703. Navi Mumbai-400705. Pan No. Acspb 2454 M Appellant Respondent

house property and claimed deduction u/s 1,09,83,090 1,09,83,090 54F Invested in Capital gains scheme on 21.05.2012 and Invested in Capital gains scheme on 21.05.2012 and 4,66,72,042 4,66,72,042 claimed deduction u/s 54F claimed deduction u/s 54F Invested in NHAI bonds Invested in NHAI bonds on 30.09.2011 u/s 54EC

BASARIBANU MOHD RAFIQ LATIWALA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5420/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Smt. Basaribanu Mohd. Rafiq Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Latiwala, 12(3)(3), V. 701/702 Neelam, Aayakar Bhavan, Rizvi Complex, Mumbai. Carter Road, Bandra (West), Mumbai – 400 050. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Abgpl0686G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

section 54F of the Act, the sale proceeds can be invested in an under ITA 5420/Mum/2016 3 construction house property within a period of three years and hence the assessee was entitled for full deduction of Rs. 92.66 lakhs. The A.O. did not accepted contentions of the assessee. The A.O. observed that the assessee has got transfer of lease

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

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

DIRECTI INTERNET SOLUTIONS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 5(1)(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

house property. The relevant provision reads reads as under: “23(1) For the purposes of section 22, the annual value of any property “23(1) For the purposes of section 22, the annual value of any property “23(1) For the purposes of section 22, the annual value of any property shall be deemed to be shall be deemed

DIRECTI INTERNET SOLUTIONS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 5(1)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

house property. The relevant provision reads reads as under: “23(1) For the purposes of section 22, the annual value of any property “23(1) For the purposes of section 22, the annual value of any property “23(1) For the purposes of section 22, the annual value of any property shall be deemed to be shall be deemed

ILJIN ELECTRIC CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) CIR 2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz, Accoutant Member & Shri Saktijit Dey

66 KV (E) Grade Single Core 400 sq.mm. Copper Conductor XLPL Insulated Feeder Cables in certain sections of Western Railway. The completion period of the contract is six months from the date of award of contract. At this stage we think it appropriate to deal with certain clauses of the Invitation For Bid (IFB). Clause 10 of the IFB provides

DCIT CEN CIR 8(4), MUMBAI vs. PHOENIX MILLS LTD, MUMBAI

In the results, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Ramesh C Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 3991/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 3992/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 3993/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 3994/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) बिधम/ Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Phoenix Mills Ltd. Income Tax, 462, Senapati Bapat Vs. Central Circle-8(4), Marg, Lower Parel, 6Th Floor, Room No. 658, Mumbai-400013. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacp 3325 J (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

66,82,051 in its profit and loss account towards Miscellaneous income. The Ld. AO applied the ratio of 62.0426% and disallowed total amount of Rs.2,35,56,645 as related to income from House Property. It is important to note that assessee has suo moto disallowed amount of Rs. 1,16,12,409 being considered as related to house

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

housing projects, cash loans/deposits, etc. As per the Revenue, the assessee violated the provisions of ITA Nos.7124 to 7129/Mum/2016 4 M/s Galaxy Premises Pvt. Ltd. section 269SS of the Act. A show cause notice was issued to the assessee as to why penalty under section 271D should not be levied. The assessee filed its submissions vide letter dated 13/07/2015, which

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

housing projects, cash loans/deposits, etc. As per the Revenue, the assessee violated the provisions of ITA Nos.7124 to 7129/Mum/2016 4 M/s Galaxy Premises Pvt. Ltd. section 269SS of the Act. A show cause notice was issued to the assessee as to why penalty under section 271D should not be levied. The assessee filed its submissions vide letter dated 13/07/2015, which

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

housing projects, cash loans/deposits, etc. As per the Revenue, the assessee violated the provisions of ITA Nos.7124 to 7129/Mum/2016 4 M/s Galaxy Premises Pvt. Ltd. section 269SS of the Act. A show cause notice was issued to the assessee as to why penalty under section 271D should not be levied. The assessee filed its submissions vide letter dated 13/07/2015, which