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)

section 37 of the Act, the entire expenditure be held to be allowable as a deduction since the assessee had even offered service charges to tax under the head 'Income from Business. In 'case the deduction for expenses is not allowed then there will be a case, wherein the assessee won't be given the deduction for the expenses incurred

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)

section 37 of the Act, the entire expenditure be held to be allowable as a deduction since the assessee had even offered service charges to tax under the head 'Income from Business. In 'case the deduction for expenses is not allowed then there will be a case, wherein the assessee won't be given the deduction for the expenses incurred

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)

section 37 of the Act, the entire expenditure be held to be allowable as a deduction since the assessee had even offered service charges to tax under the head 'Income from Business. In 'case the deduction for expenses is not allowed then there will be a case, wherein the assessee won't be given the deduction for the expenses incurred

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)

section 37 of the Act, the entire expenditure be held to be allowable as a deduction since the assessee had even offered service charges to tax under the head 'Income from Business. In 'case the deduction for expenses is not allowed then there will be a case, wherein the assessee won't be given the deduction for the expenses incurred

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)

section 37 of the Act, the entire expenditure be held to be allowable as a deduction since the assessee had even offered service charges to tax under the head 'Income from Business. In 'case the deduction for expenses is not allowed then there will be a case, wherein the assessee won't be given the deduction for the expenses incurred

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)

section 37 of the Act, the entire expenditure be held to be allowable as a deduction since the assessee had even offered service charges to tax under the head 'Income from Business. In 'case the deduction for expenses is not allowed then there will be a case, wherein the assessee won't be given the deduction for the expenses incurred

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)

section 37 of the Act, the entire expenditure be held to be allowable as a deduction since the assessee had even offered service charges to tax under the head 'Income from Business. In 'case the deduction for expenses is not allowed then there will be a case, wherein the assessee won't be given the deduction for the expenses incurred

NAHALCHAND LALOOCHAND P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

section 27(iiib). He observed, leasing / letting out of properties is not the business of assessee. Therefore, the income derived from lease rentals has to be treated as “Income From House Property”. He observed, the contention of the assessee that letting out of the property to the bank is for the purpose of assessee’s business is not a valid

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

section 54F of the Act. The Assessin . The Assessing Officer also added notional income g Officer also added notional income from house property in relation to from house property in relation to flat of the house property of the house property along with addition for cash deposit. In this manner, the Assessing Officer with addition for cash deposit. In this

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

92,20,831 is required to be allowed under the head business income, which were suo-moto disallowed by the appellant as it had considered the rent income as "Income from House Property". 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not holding that interest expense of Rs.1,85,07,827 is required to be allowed under the head business income

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

92,20,831 is required to be allowed under the head business income, which were suo-moto disallowed by the appellant as it had considered the rent income as "Income from House Property". 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not holding that interest expense of Rs.1,85,07,827 is required to be allowed under the head business income

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

92,20,831 is required to be allowed under the head business income, which were suo-moto disallowed by the appellant as it had considered the rent income as "Income from House Property". 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not holding that interest expense of Rs.1,85,07,827 is required to be allowed under the head business income

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

92,20,831 is required to be allowed under the head business income, which were suo-moto disallowed by the appellant as it had considered the rent income as "Income from House Property". 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not holding that interest expense of Rs.1,85,07,827 is required to be allowed under the head business income

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

92,20,831 is required to be allowed under the head business income, which were suo-moto disallowed by the appellant as it had considered the rent income as "Income from House Property". 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not holding that interest expense of Rs.1,85,07,827 is required to be allowed under the head business income

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

92,20,831 is required to be allowed under the head business income, which were suo-moto disallowed by the appellant as it had considered the rent income as "Income from House Property". 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not holding that interest expense of Rs.1,85,07,827 is required to be allowed under the head business income

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

92,20,831 is required to be allowed under the head business income, which were suo-moto disallowed by the appellant as it had considered the rent income as "Income from House Property". 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not holding that interest expense of Rs.1,85,07,827 is required to be allowed under the head business income

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) ..

Section 14A, and is only to the extent of disallowing expenditure "incurred by the assessee in relation to the tax exemrjt income". This proportion or portion of the tax exempt income surely cannot swallow the entire amount as has happened in this case. 14.6. In view of the above judicial pronouncements, we do not find any infirmity in the order

M/S.EMCO DYESTUFF PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 12(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.703/Mum/2018 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) बिाम/ M/S. Emco Dyestuff Dcit 12(2)(1), Private Ltd. 5Th Floor, Unit No. 304, Earnest House, V. Western Edge, Nariman Point, W E Highway, Mumbai-400021 Dattapada Road, Borivali East, Mumbai-400066 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaace1167D (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Snehal R. Shah Revenue By: Shri. V.K Chaturvedi (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 10.04.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.07.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 703/Mum/2018, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 16.10.2017, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”) In Appeal Number Cit(A)-20/Dcit-12(2)(1)/It-10040/16- 17 For Assessment Year 2013-14, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated 11.03.2016 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2013-14. I.T.A. No.703/Mum/2018

properties were not used for purposes of business of the assessee at all during year under consideration . The learned CIT(A) referred to provisions of clause (ii) to Section 32(1) r.w.s. 38(2) of the 1961 Act and observed that the assessee is not entitled to depreciation on premises let out although part relief was granted by learned