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

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 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 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 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

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

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

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

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

79,140/- claimed by the assesse under\nincome from house property. The AO on second disputed\nissue, found that the assessee has incurred finance cost @\n21% being Rs.4,22,00,258/-on the funds borrowed from\nPhoenix Mills Ltd of Rs. 60,75,00,000/- and such charging\nof interest is at higher side and is in not reasonable

PRIYA MOHAN GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

79,660 - - Confirmed the additions as per appellate order dated 15/03/2021 12-13 2,88,450 - - Confirmed the additions as per order dated 12/03/2021 13-14 51,909 - - Confirmed addition by appellate order dated 15/03/2021 14-15 1,19,718 6,14,05,822 40,00,000 Confirmed the addition by the appellate order dated 30/3/2021

PRIYA MOHAN GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. CY CIT-CC-5(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

79,660 - - Confirmed the additions as per appellate order dated 15/03/2021 12-13 2,88,450 - - Confirmed the additions as per order dated 12/03/2021 13-14 51,909 - - Confirmed addition by appellate order dated 15/03/2021 14-15 1,19,718 6,14,05,822 40,00,000 Confirmed the addition by the appellate order dated 30/3/2021

PRIYA MOHAN GURNANAI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

79,660 - - Confirmed the additions as per appellate order dated 15/03/2021 12-13 2,88,450 - - Confirmed the additions as per order dated 12/03/2021 13-14 51,909 - - Confirmed addition by appellate order dated 15/03/2021 14-15 1,19,718 6,14,05,822 40,00,000 Confirmed the addition by the appellate order dated 30/3/2021

PRIYA MOHAN GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

79,660 - - Confirmed the additions as per appellate order dated 15/03/2021 12-13 2,88,450 - - Confirmed the additions as per order dated 12/03/2021 13-14 51,909 - - Confirmed addition by appellate order dated 15/03/2021 14-15 1,19,718 6,14,05,822 40,00,000 Confirmed the addition by the appellate order dated 30/3/2021

PRIYA MOHAN GURNANAI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

79,660 - - Confirmed the additions as per appellate order dated 15/03/2021 12-13 2,88,450 - - Confirmed the additions as per order dated 12/03/2021 13-14 51,909 - - Confirmed addition by appellate order dated 15/03/2021 14-15 1,19,718 6,14,05,822 40,00,000 Confirmed the addition by the appellate order dated 30/3/2021

PRIYA MOHAN GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

79,660 - - Confirmed the additions as per appellate order dated 15/03/2021 12-13 2,88,450 - - Confirmed the additions as per order dated 12/03/2021 13-14 51,909 - - Confirmed addition by appellate order dated 15/03/2021 14-15 1,19,718 6,14,05,822 40,00,000 Confirmed the addition by the appellate order dated 30/3/2021

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

In the result, the\nappeal filed by the revenue is dismissed\n35

79,140/- claimed by the assesse under\nincome from house property. The AO on second disputed\nissue, found that the assessee has incurred finance cost @\n21% being Rs.4,22,00,258/-on the funds borrowed from\nPhoenix Mills Ltd of Rs. 60,75,00,000/- and such charging\nof interest is at higher side and is in not reasonable