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

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

house properties, both these situations\nare totally distinct.\n22. In so far as the decision of the Supreme Court in East India\nHousing (supra) is concerned, in the said case, the Supreme Court was\nconcerned with the appellant / assessee whose main business was “to\nbuy and develop landed properties and to promote and develop\nmarkets\", for which it had purchased

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

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

house properties, both these situations\nare totally distinct.\n22. In so far as the decision of the Supreme Court in East India\nHousing (supra) is concerned, in the said case, the Supreme Court was\nconcerned with the appellant / assessee whose main business was “to\nbuy and develop landed properties and to promote and develop\nmarkets\", for which it had purchased

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 property. 112. AO has also made disallowance under Section 14A read with Section Rule 8D on the plea that assessee has earned dividend income which is exempt from tax. By the impugned order CIT(A) deleted disallowance of interest by observing that assessee is having own funds as per the balance sheet amounting to Rs.14,99,79

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 property. 112. AO has also made disallowance under Section 14A read with Section Rule 8D on the plea that assessee has earned dividend income which is exempt from tax. By the impugned order CIT(A) deleted disallowance of interest by observing that assessee is having own funds as per the balance sheet amounting to Rs.14,99,79

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 property. 112. AO has also made disallowance under Section 14A read with Section Rule 8D on the plea that assessee has earned dividend income which is exempt from tax. By the impugned order CIT(A) deleted disallowance of interest by observing that assessee is having own funds as per the balance sheet amounting to Rs.14,99,79

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 property. 112. AO has also made disallowance under Section 14A read with Section Rule 8D on the plea that assessee has earned dividend income which is exempt from tax. By the impugned order CIT(A) deleted disallowance of interest by observing that assessee is having own funds as per the balance sheet amounting to Rs.14,99,79

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 property. 112. AO has also made disallowance under Section 14A read with Section Rule 8D on the plea that assessee has earned dividend income which is exempt from tax. By the impugned order CIT(A) deleted disallowance of interest by observing that assessee is having own funds as per the balance sheet amounting to Rs.14,99,79

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 property. 112. AO has also made disallowance under Section 14A read with Section Rule 8D on the plea that assessee has earned dividend income which is exempt from tax. By the impugned order CIT(A) deleted disallowance of interest by observing that assessee is having own funds as per the balance sheet amounting to Rs.14,99,79

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 property. 112. AO has also made disallowance under Section 14A read with Section Rule 8D on the plea that assessee has earned dividend income which is exempt from tax. By the impugned order CIT(A) deleted disallowance of interest by observing that assessee is having own funds as per the balance sheet amounting to Rs.14,99,79

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 property. 112. AO has also made disallowance under Section 14A read with Section Rule 8D on the plea that assessee has earned dividend income which is exempt from tax. By the impugned order CIT(A) deleted disallowance of interest by observing that assessee is having own funds as per the balance sheet amounting to Rs.14,99,79

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 property. 112. AO has also made disallowance under Section 14A read with Section Rule 8D on the plea that assessee has earned dividend income which is exempt from tax. By the impugned order CIT(A) deleted disallowance of interest by observing that assessee is having own funds as per the balance sheet amounting to Rs.14,99,79

WADHWA & ASSOCIATES REALTORS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 9(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: D.T. Garasia & Shri N. K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Wadhwa & Associates Asst. Commissioner Of Income Realtors Private Limited Tax 9(3) 301, 3Rd Floor, Platina, Mumbai. Plot C-59, G Block, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai - 400051 Pan:Aaacw5273G (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Jitendra Jain, Advocate & Shri Mahesh O. Rajora, Ca Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Patankar Date Of Hearing : 29.01.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.02.2018 O R D E R

house property income shall not be denied in view of section 79 of the Act to the assessee as during

H & M HOUSING FINANCE AND LEASING PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, ground No. 1 and 2 of the assessee‟s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanassessment Year : 2017-18 H&M Housing Finance & Deputy Commissioner Of Leasing Private Limited, Income Tax, C/62, 9Th Floor, Vibgyor Towers, Vs. Circle–7(1)(2), Bandra Kurla Complex, Aayakar Bhavan, Bandra (East), M.K.Road, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400020. Pan : Aabch4398E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nitesh Joshi & Shri Nishith Khatri Revenue By : Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr.Dr

section 9 and taxed accordingly”. This judgment, supported by earlier cases like United 7 Commercial Bank Ltd. vs. CIT (32 ITR 688) and others, and aligns with rulings from House of Lords in the case of Fry v. Salisbury House Estates Co. Ltd. (1930) AC 432 and Hon‟ble Calcutta High Court in Commercial Properties Limited

ISLAND STAR MALL DEVELOPES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 6(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

79,140/- claimed by the assesse under income from house property. The AO on second disputed issue, found that the assessee has incurred finance cost @ 21% being Rs.4,22,00,258/-on the funds borrowed from Phoenix Mills Ltd of Rs. 60,75,00,000/- and such charging of interest is at higher side and is in not reasonable

ISLAND STAR MALL DEVELOPES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI SUBURBAN vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 6(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

79,140/- claimed by the assesse under income from house property. The AO on second disputed issue, found that the assessee has incurred finance cost @ 21% being Rs.4,22,00,258/-on the funds borrowed from Phoenix Mills Ltd of Rs. 60,75,00,000/- and such charging of interest is at higher side and is in not reasonable

ISLAND STAR MALL DEVELOPES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 6(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

79,140/- claimed by the assesse under income from house property. The AO on second disputed issue, found that the assessee has incurred finance cost @ 21% being Rs.4,22,00,258/-on the funds borrowed from Phoenix Mills Ltd of Rs. 60,75,00,000/- and such charging of interest is at higher side and is in not reasonable

ISLAND STAR MALL DEVELOPES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI SUBURBAN vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 6(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

79,140/- claimed by the assesse under income from house property. The AO on second disputed issue, found that the assessee has incurred finance cost @ 21% being Rs.4,22,00,258/-on the funds borrowed from Phoenix Mills Ltd of Rs. 60,75,00,000/- and such charging of interest is at higher side and is in not reasonable

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 6(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S ISLAND STAR MALL DEVELOPERS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

79,140/- claimed by the assesse under income from house property. The AO on second disputed issue, found that the assessee has incurred finance cost @ 21% being Rs.4,22,00,258/-on the funds borrowed from Phoenix Mills Ltd of Rs. 60,75,00,000/- and such charging of interest is at higher side and is in not reasonable