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 22 of the Income\ntax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act') and the rental income\nchargeable tax under the head ‘Income from house property’. [CIT v Ansal\nHousing Finance & Leasing Co. Ltd (2016) 72 Taxman.com 254]. Thus,\nthe AO is not justified in treating the rental receipts of Rs.3,95,73

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 22 of the Income\ntax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act') and the rental income\nchargeable tax under the head ‘Income from house property’. [CIT v Ansal\nHousing Finance & Leasing Co. Ltd (2016) 72 Taxman.com 254]. Thus,\nthe AO is not justified in treating the rental receipts of Rs.3,95,73

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)

73. We have already observed hereinabove the basic structure as well as the income components of the appellant's business. The assessee receives rental income from these stores / shops and offers the same under the head "Income from House Property" and also service charges which is offered under the head of “business income”. In regards to the employee cost

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)

73. We have already observed hereinabove the basic structure as well as the income components of the appellant's business. The assessee receives rental income from these stores / shops and offers the same under the head "Income from House Property" and also service charges which is offered under the head of “business income”. In regards to the employee cost

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)

73. We have already observed hereinabove the basic structure as well as the income components of the appellant's business. The assessee receives rental income from these stores / shops and offers the same under the head "Income from House Property" and also service charges which is offered under the head of “business income”. In regards to the employee cost

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)

73. We have already observed hereinabove the basic structure as well as the income components of the appellant's business. The assessee receives rental income from these stores / shops and offers the same under the head "Income from House Property" and also service charges which is offered under the head of “business income”. In regards to the employee cost

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)

73. We have already observed hereinabove the basic structure as well as the income components of the appellant's business. The assessee receives rental income from these stores / shops and offers the same under the head "Income from House Property" and also service charges which is offered under the head of “business income”. In regards to the employee cost

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)

73. We have already observed hereinabove the basic structure as well as the income components of the appellant's business. The assessee receives rental income from these stores / shops and offers the same under the head "Income from House Property" and also service charges which is offered under the head of “business income”. In regards to the employee cost

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)

73. We have already observed hereinabove the basic structure as well as the income components of the appellant's business. The assessee receives rental income from these stores / shops and offers the same under the head "Income from House Property" and also service charges which is offered under the head of “business income”. In regards to the employee cost

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)

73. We have already observed hereinabove the basic structure as well as the income components of the appellant's business. The assessee receives rental income from these stores / shops and offers the same under the head "Income from House Property" and also service charges which is offered under the head of “business income”. In regards to the employee cost

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)

73. We have already observed hereinabove the basic structure as well as the income components of the appellant's business. The assessee receives rental income from these stores / shops and offers the same under the head "Income from House Property" and also service charges which is offered under the head of “business income”. In regards to the employee cost

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

house property was taxed at ₹ 73,722/– based on the property tax bill and (5) the flat number 16 was taxed at ₹ 247,934/– on the basis of deemed rent of ₹ 3 lakhs offered by the assessee in assessment year 2016 – 17. b) The assessee claimed long-term capital gain on sale of the shares as exempt under section

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 was taxed at ₹ 73,722/– based on the property tax bill and (5) the flat number 16 was taxed at ₹ 247,934/– on the basis of deemed rent of ₹ 3 lakhs offered by the assessee in assessment year 2016 – 17. b) The assessee claimed long-term capital gain on sale of the shares as exempt under section

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 was taxed at ₹ 73,722/– based on the property tax bill and (5) the flat number 16 was taxed at ₹ 247,934/– on the basis of deemed rent of ₹ 3 lakhs offered by the assessee in assessment year 2016 – 17. b) The assessee claimed long-term capital gain on sale of the shares as exempt under section

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 was taxed at ₹ 73,722/– based on the property tax bill and (5) the flat number 16 was taxed at ₹ 247,934/– on the basis of deemed rent of ₹ 3 lakhs offered by the assessee in assessment year 2016 – 17. b) The assessee claimed long-term capital gain on sale of the shares as exempt under section

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 was taxed at ₹ 73,722/– based on the property tax bill and (5) the flat number 16 was taxed at ₹ 247,934/– on the basis of deemed rent of ₹ 3 lakhs offered by the assessee in assessment year 2016 – 17. b) The assessee claimed long-term capital gain on sale of the shares as exempt under section

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 was taxed at ₹ 73,722/– based on the property tax bill and (5) the flat number 16 was taxed at ₹ 247,934/– on the basis of deemed rent of ₹ 3 lakhs offered by the assessee in assessment year 2016 – 17. b) The assessee claimed long-term capital gain on sale of the shares as exempt under section

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 was taxed at ₹ 73,722/– based on the property tax bill and (5) the flat number 16 was taxed at ₹ 247,934/– on the basis of deemed rent of ₹ 3 lakhs offered by the assessee in assessment year 2016 – 17. b) The assessee claimed long-term capital gain on sale of the shares as exempt under section