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

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

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

92,20,831 is\nrequired to be allowed under the head business income, which\nwere suo-moto disallowed by the appellant as it had\nconsidered the rent income as \"Income from House Property\".\n3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not holding that interest expense of\nRs.1,85,07,827 is required to be allowed under the head\nbusiness income

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

92,20,831 is\nrequired to be allowed under the head business income, which\nwere suo-moto disallowed by the appellant as it had\nconsidered the rent income as \"Income from House Property\".\n3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not holding that interest expense of\nRs.1,85,07,827 is required to be allowed under the head\nbusiness 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 appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals filed\nby the revenue are dismissed

92,20,831 is\nrequired to be allowed under the head business income, which\nwere suo-moto disallowed by the appellant as it had\nconsidered the rent income as \"Income from House Property\".\n3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not holding that interest expense of\nRs.1,85,07,827 is required to be allowed under the head\nbusiness income

SUMAN GUPTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - CC- 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2015

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Ita Nos. 3860 & 3859/Mum/2018 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Smt. Suman Gupta, Dy. Cit Cc-4(2), 6Th New Harileela House, Air India Building, 19Th Mint Road, Fort, Vs. Floor, Room No. 1918, Mumbai-400 001. Nariman Point, Mumbai-21. Pan No. Ahqpg 0220 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Bhupendra Karkhanis & Mr. Aakash Marthak & Mr. Vijay Bhatt, Ars Revenue By : Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 02/03/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 27/04/2023 Order

92 1,71,90,735 1,71,90,735 Property at lavassa 94 Property at lavassa 94 1,71,49,899 1,71,49,899 Property at Alibaug Property at Alibaug 5,02,696 5,02,696 Flat at Pune 20,72,866 20,72,866 50% share in Sakinaka Property 50% share in Sakinaka Property

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

92,34,250/- under the head “Income from Business/Profession”.\n2. Without prejudice to ground No. 1, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not holding that the sum of\nRs.2,30,53,909/- [being 59% of 5,14,70,407-73,13,631] is required to be allowed\nunder the head business income out of the total legal and professional charges

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6(1)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ISLAND STAR MALL DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LTD, MUMBAI

92,20,831 is\nrequired to be allowed under the head business income, which\nwere suo-moto disallowed by the appellant as it had\nconsidered the rent income as \"Income from House Property\".\n3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not holding that interest expense of\nRs.1,85,07,827 is required to be allowed under the head\nbusiness income

SARITA SUNIL MANTRI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for stati...

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sarita Sunil Mantri, Ito-7(2)(1), Flat 3 & 4, Kamal Building, Aayakar Bhavan, 69 Walkeshwar Road, Opp. Vs. Mumbai-400020. Gopi Birla School, Walkeshwar, Mumbai-400006. Pan No. Adxpm 8070 E Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Abhishek Jhunjhunwala, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Aditya Rai, Dr : Date Of Hearing 17/01/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 19/01/2023

92,506 NIL Income from Long term capital Income from Long term capital 84,40,500 36,37,562 gain Income from other sources Income from other sources 34,36,37,298 NIL Assessed Total Income Assessed Total Income 35,36,37,298 39,75,760 Brought Forward Loss to be allowed Brought Forward Loss to be allowed

KANAKIA GRUHNIRMAN PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-10(1)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blekanakia Gruhnirman Pvt. Ltd., V. Dcit – 10(1)(2) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Kanakia Future City, Cts No. 101 Behind Dr. L. H. Hiranandani Hospital Mumbai - 400020 Near Ayyappa Temple, Tirandaz Powai, Mumbai – 400076 Pan: Aaack1572C (Appellant) (Respondent)

92,59,461/- plant Computer with printer, generation set, equipments. d. Finance cost capitalized. Rs.3,64,57,807/- e. Total Cost as per balance sheet. Rs.42,36,39,011/ 5. Assessing Officer observed that, in view of the above and as lease deed to let out the school building with above referred infrastructure and amenities was entered into for composite

MORAJ BUILDING CONCEPTS PVT LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRLE - 5(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

section 143(3) cannot disturb the assessment order.” 8. Respectfully following the above said decision, we are inclined to set aside the orders passed for these two Assessment Years as there is no incriminating material found during the search. 9. In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for the A.Ys. 2012-13 and 2013-14 are allowed. ITA.No

MORAJ BUILDING CONCEPTS PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENT. CIR -5(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

section 143(3) cannot disturb the assessment order.” 8. Respectfully following the above said decision, we are inclined to set aside the orders passed for these two Assessment Years as there is no incriminating material found during the search. 9. In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for the A.Ys. 2012-13 and 2013-14 are allowed. ITA.No

MORAJ BUILDING CONCEPTS PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 5(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

section 143(3) cannot disturb the assessment order.” 8. Respectfully following the above said decision, we are inclined to set aside the orders passed for these two Assessment Years as there is no incriminating material found during the search. 9. In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for the A.Ys. 2012-13 and 2013-14 are allowed. ITA.No

MORAJ BUILDING CONCEPTS PVT.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIR -5(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

section 143(3) cannot disturb the assessment order.” 8. Respectfully following the above said decision, we are inclined to set aside the orders passed for these two Assessment Years as there is no incriminating material found during the search. 9. In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for the A.Ys. 2012-13 and 2013-14 are allowed. ITA.No