MEENA VASWANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 26(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1983/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10)

80C of 1961 Act for repayment of housing loan availed for purchasing residential flat at ‘Tropicana’ . The assessee has also claimed the said residential flat at ‘Tropicana’ as self occupied residential property and interest on housing loan availed for purchase of said flat at ‘Tropicana’ is claimed as loss under the head ‘Income from House Property. The assessee has declared

HITESH NAVINCHANDRA MEHTA ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 42(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated herein above

Bench: SMT BEENA PILLAI (Judicial Member)

section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. Hence, the same are not leviable. 6. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, delete, rescind or withdraw any of the grounds of appeal mentioned hereinabove.” 2. At the outset, the Ld.AR submitted that Grounds no. 3-4 are not pressed at the instructions of the assessee. Accordingly, Grounds

PRIYA KAPIL TODARWAL ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, 30(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

80C to 80U. 4 ITA 1838/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2019-20 Priya Kapil Todarwal It is submitted that, the deduction under chapter VIA of Rs.1,93,000./- is thus correctly claimed by the assessee. 3.1 It was also submitted that, as per section 71(2), there is no order prescribed for set off of losses and therefore option is available with assessee

ICICI PRUDENTIAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 6(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 384/Mum/2015 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

property of whatever description insured for any transit by land or water, or both and whether or not including warehouse risks or similar risks in addition, or as incidental to such transit, and includes any other risks customarily included among the risks insured against in marine insurance policies; Section 13(B): "miscellaneous insurance business" means the business of effecting contracts

UMESH RAMESH PATIL,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Umesh Ramesh Patil, Cit (Appeals), Jai Malhar Builders & Office Of Asstt. Cit Central Developers Kalyan Padgha Vs. Circle 1, Thane-400604. Road, Near Gandhari Bridge Bapgaon, Bhiwandi-421 302. Pan No. Aavpp 4945 L Appellant Respondent

Property - Interest charged for Repayment of Housing Loan u/s 24B and Deduction under section 80C. Umesh Ramesh Patil 2 2. The learned

SHRI AJAY NARENDRA BANSAL,MUMBAI vs. ITO 22(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Bleshri Ajay Narendra Bansal V. Income Tax Officer -22(1)(1) 201, Plot No. 668 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan La Eoche Chsl, Tps-Iii M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 19Th Road, Ambedkar Road Khar (W), Mumbai - 400052 Pan: Aacpb6224 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kiran Mehta Department By : Ms. Kranti Yadav

property. Therefore, he held that the interest expenditure along with principle repaid would qualify for deduction under section 24(b) and section 80C of the Act. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer disallowed the interest expenditure of ` 23,25,355. The assessee contested the aforesaid disallowance before the first appellate authority without any success. 4. The learned Authorised Representative submitted, identical issue

SHRI. AJAY NARENDRA BANSAL,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey

property. Therefore, he held that the interest expenditure along with principle repaid would qualify for deduction under section 24(b) and section 80C of the Act. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer disallowed the interest expenditure of ` 23,25,355. The assessee contested the aforesaid disallowance before the first appellate authority without any success. 4. The learned Authorised Representative submitted, identical issue

SANJIV SOSHIL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(2), KAUTILYA BHAVAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble\N&\Nshri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon'Ble\Ni.T.A. No. 2096/Mum/2025\N Assessment Year: 2020-21\Nmr. Sanjiv Mehta\Nvs\Nprincipal Commissioner Of\Nworld Crest\Nlodha World Towers\Nw-5701 & E-5703\Nlower Parel\Nmumbai - 400013\N[Pan: Aanpm7571K]\Nअपीलार्थी/ (Appellant)\Nassessee By:\Nrevenue By :\Nincome-Tax – 1, Mumbai\Nप्रत्यर्थी / (Respondent)\Nshri Ketan Ved & Ms. Riya Shah, A/Rs\Nshri Arun Kanti Datta, Cit, D/R\Nसुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing\N: 16/07/2025\Nघोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement:\N/07/2025\Nआदेश/Order\Nper Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am:\N1. This Appeal By The Assessee Is Preferred Against The Order Of\Nthe Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai\N[Hereinafter 'The Ld. Pr. Cit'] Dated 10/03/2025 Pertaining To Ay\N2020-21 Framed U/S 263 Of The Act.\N2. The Sum & Substance Of The Grievance Of The Assessee Is That The\Nld. Pr. Cit Erred In Assuming Jurisdiction Conferred Upon Him By The\Nprovisions Of Section 263 Of The Act & Further Erred In Holding That The\Nassessment Order Dated 25/08/2022 Framed U/S 143(3) R.W.S.144B Of The\Nact Is Erroneous Insofar As It Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue.\N3. Briefly Stated The Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Derives\Nincome From Salary & Investments & Filed His Return Of Income On\Nआयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण\Nincome Tax Appellate Tribunal\Nι.Τ.Α. No. 2096/Mum/2025\N2\N10/12/2020 Declaring Total Income At ₹ 23,71,38,203/-. The Return Was\Nselected For Scrutiny Assessment & Accordingly Statutory Notices Were\Nissued & Served Upon The Assessee. After Perusal Of The Return Of\Nincome, Materials Available On Record & Reply Furnished By The\Nassessee On Different Dates In Respect Of The Notices Issued, No Adverse\Ninference Was Drawn & The Return Of Income Of The Assessee Was\Naccepted As Such.\N3.

80C\nPF Contribution\nDeduction under section 80G\nDeduction under section 80TTA\nTotal Income\n44,63,091\n(1,50,000)\n(31,150)\n(10,000)\n23,71,38,203\nआयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण\nINCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nI.T.A. No. 2096/Mum/2025\n7\nSTATEMENT OF TAX LIABILITY\nParticulars\nIncome liable to tax at slab rates\nShort term capital gains - Equity\nLong term

GIRIRAJ KISHAN SHARMA ,MUMBAI vs. ITO 12 (1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

section 80C, SOD and also set off of loss of income from house property. However, Shri A.S. Masurkar, CA did not file

ASST CIT CIR 23, MUMBAI vs. OBEROI REALITY LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross- objection of filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhthe Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax,Cir.23, Room No.409, 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Mk Road, Mumbai 400 002 ... Appellant

80C to 80U of the Act subject to the conditions prescribed therein. The claim of the assessee 6 M/s. Oberoi Realty Ltd. ITA No. 6044/Mum/2013 & CO No. 6/Mum/2015 is u/s 80IB(10) which is also liable to be governed by the prescription of Sec. 80A(1) of the Act. Sub-section (2) of Sec. 80A further prescribes that the aggregate

SHRI. HITENDRA C GHADIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 1 (1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-2012 & Assessment Year: 2013-2014 & Assessment Year: 2014-2015

property, business, capital gain and other sources. A search and seizure action under section 132(1) of other sources. A search and seizure action under section 132(1) of other sources. A search and seizure action under section 132(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’), was carried

SHRI. HITENDRA C GHADIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 1 (1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-2012 & Assessment Year: 2013-2014 & Assessment Year: 2014-2015

property, business, capital gain and other sources. A search and seizure action under section 132(1) of other sources. A search and seizure action under section 132(1) of other sources. A search and seizure action under section 132(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’), was carried

SHRI HITENDRA C. GHADIA ,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-1(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-2012 & Assessment Year: 2013-2014 & Assessment Year: 2014-2015

property, business, capital gain and other sources. A search and seizure action under section 132(1) of other sources. A search and seizure action under section 132(1) of other sources. A search and seizure action under section 132(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’), was carried

DCIT 10(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. PHOENIX MECANO (I) PLTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year:2011-12

80C to 80U. Section 80B(5) defines the purposes of section VIA “gross total income” to mean the total income computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act before making any deduction under the chapter. The deduction u/s 10B, in my view, has to be given effect to at the stage of computing the profit & gains of the business

MOHEMMED ANWAR BY LEGAL HEIR MOHAMMED AAMER,MORADABAD vs. ACIT, 17(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

house property, income from business, capital gains and income from other sources. After claiming deduction under section 80C and section

ROHIT BOHARA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 27(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal(Physical Hearing) Rohit Bohra, Dcit-Circle27(3), B-3501, Bhagwati Eleganza, Vs Room No. 423, Vrccl, Plot No. 12, Sector 11, Ghansoli, Sector 30, Navi Mumbai, Navi Mumbai – 400709. Vashi – 400703. [Pan No. Ahqpb6511] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Aditya Ramachandran, Ca Revenue By Shri Ujjwal Kumar – Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 10.03.2026 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per: Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (In Short, The Ld. Cit(A)) Dated 09/10/2025 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2019-20. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Appeal Of The Appellant Before The Cit (A) May Please Be Restored Back & The Non-Compliance Of The Appellant In Respect Of The Notices Issued By The Cit (A) May Please Be Excused As It Was For The Genuine Reasons. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ld. Assessing Officer In Adding Time Deposits Amounting To Rs 10,00,000 Under Section 69 Of The Act On The Ground That The Appellant Was Unable To Prove Its Corresponding Source. Rohit Bohra

section 80C of the Income Tax Act, 1961(‘the Act’). The credit in bank account were in form of fixed deposit which were not from unknown sources, rather it was a part of sale proceed of house property

NIAMAT MAHROOF VIRJI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 17(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1964/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Niamat Mahroof Virji, I.T.O. 17(3)(3), बनाम/ Unit 232, 2 Nd Floor, Piramal Chambers, V. Bussa Udyog Bhavan, Opp Parel P.O., T.J. Road, Mumbai. Sewree. Mumbai – 400 015. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aahpv1071H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

house property, business, other sources and capital gains. The assessee has earned capital gain on the sale of ancestral property along with her brother and cousins viz. Devji Kanji Building , Princess Street, Mumbai vide Indenture of Assignment made on 13th October, 2008 for a total consideration of Rs.1,05,00,000/- . The assessee declared long term capital gains

ROCKLINE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO 13(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhm/S. Rockline Developers P. Ltd. Income Tax Officer-13(3)(2) 801, Hubtown Solaris Mumbai Vs. N.S. Phadke Marg, Off. Teli Gali Andheri (E), Mumbai 400069 Pan – Aaacr4467F Appellant Respondent

house property’, Profits and gains of business or profession, ‘Capital gains’ and ‘Income from other sources’. After computing the income under the different heads as per the provisions of sections 14 to 59, there are certain income of other persons which are to be included in assessee’s total income. They are being dealt with under sections