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

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

business receipts and deny the Appellant standard\ndeduction amounting to Rs.83,74,762/- allowable under section 24(a) of\nthe Act.\n3.1 Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of\nincome for AY 2012-13 declaring income at Rs.1,69,14,565/-.\nAssessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act assessing income

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

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

reassessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of\nthe Act was finalized assessing income at Rs.2,60,33,300/-.\n3.2 During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed\nby the Assessing Officer that the assessee had credited an amount of Rs.\n2,82,16,861/- as Rental income in its P&L A/c. It treated the rent\ncharges

AMBUJA CEMENT INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 3(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2600/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2005-06)

business loss against the said interest income which is against the provisions of Sec. 72 of the Income tax Act. 3.2] In response to the same the appellant vide letter dated 12-10-2012 objected to the initiation of reassessment

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)

business income and allowed the same while computing the ALV, Hence the ALV was revised from 20,09,99,756/- to Rs. 17,91,35,039/-. 8 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. 11. From the record we found that similar disallowance was made by the Assessing Officer in the A.Y.2001-02, A.Y.2003-04, A.Y.2004-05 and A.Y.2005-06. The said disallowance was partly deleted

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)

business income and allowed the same while computing the ALV, Hence the ALV was revised from 20,09,99,756/- to Rs. 17,91,35,039/-. 8 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. 11. From the record we found that similar disallowance was made by the Assessing Officer in the A.Y.2001-02, A.Y.2003-04, A.Y.2004-05 and A.Y.2005-06. The said disallowance was partly deleted

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)

business income and allowed the same while computing the ALV, Hence the ALV was revised from 20,09,99,756/- to Rs. 17,91,35,039/-. 8 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. 11. From the record we found that similar disallowance was made by the Assessing Officer in the A.Y.2001-02, A.Y.2003-04, A.Y.2004-05 and A.Y.2005-06. The said disallowance was partly deleted

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)

business income and allowed the same while computing the ALV, Hence the ALV was revised from 20,09,99,756/- to Rs. 17,91,35,039/-. 8 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. 11. From the record we found that similar disallowance was made by the Assessing Officer in the A.Y.2001-02, A.Y.2003-04, A.Y.2004-05 and A.Y.2005-06. The said disallowance was partly deleted

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)

business income and allowed the same while computing the ALV, Hence the ALV was revised from 20,09,99,756/- to Rs. 17,91,35,039/-. 8 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. 11. From the record we found that similar disallowance was made by the Assessing Officer in the A.Y.2001-02, A.Y.2003-04, A.Y.2004-05 and A.Y.2005-06. The said disallowance was partly deleted

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)

business income and allowed the same while computing the ALV, Hence the ALV was revised from 20,09,99,756/- to Rs. 17,91,35,039/-. 8 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. 11. From the record we found that similar disallowance was made by the Assessing Officer in the A.Y.2001-02, A.Y.2003-04, A.Y.2004-05 and A.Y.2005-06. The said disallowance was partly deleted

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)

business income and allowed the same while computing the ALV, Hence the ALV was revised from 20,09,99,756/- to Rs. 17,91,35,039/-. 8 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. 11. From the record we found that similar disallowance was made by the Assessing Officer in the A.Y.2001-02, A.Y.2003-04, A.Y.2004-05 and A.Y.2005-06. The said disallowance was partly deleted

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)

business income and allowed the same while computing the ALV, Hence the ALV was revised from 20,09,99,756/- to Rs. 17,91,35,039/-. 8 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. 11. From the record we found that similar disallowance was made by the Assessing Officer in the A.Y.2001-02, A.Y.2003-04, A.Y.2004-05 and A.Y.2005-06. The said disallowance was partly deleted

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)

business income and allowed the same while computing the ALV, Hence the ALV was revised from 20,09,99,756/- to Rs. 17,91,35,039/-. 8 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. 11. From the record we found that similar disallowance was made by the Assessing Officer in the A.Y.2001-02, A.Y.2003-04, A.Y.2004-05 and A.Y.2005-06. The said disallowance was partly deleted

SARAH FAISAL HAWA,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 21(3), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. P.K. Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh

reassessment proceedings and after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee." 4. The AO in compliance of the direction of the Tribunal passed the assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 254 of the Act on 31.03.2015. The AO while treated the LTCG and STCG as “Business Income

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

business receipts unless there are specific evidence ignoring the facts and circumstances of the case established by the Assessing Officer that in case of assessee addition 69A on the unexplained income because of unaccounted sale of scrap etc. have been made. 11. Whether the Ld.CIT(A) erred in observing that AO has also referred a loose paper, page

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED, MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

business receipts unless there are specific evidence ignoring the facts and circumstances of the case established by the Assessing Officer that in case of assessee addition 69A on the unexplained income because of unaccounted sale of scrap etc. have been made. 11. Whether the Ld.CIT(A) erred in observing that AO has also referred a loose paper, page

DCIT CC 5-1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED , MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

business receipts unless there are specific evidence ignoring the facts and circumstances of the case established by the Assessing Officer that in case of assessee addition 69A on the unexplained income because of unaccounted sale of scrap etc. have been made. 11. Whether the Ld.CIT(A) erred in observing that AO has also referred a loose paper, page

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

business receipts unless there are specific evidence ignoring the facts and circumstances of the case established by the Assessing Officer that in case of assessee addition 69A on the unexplained income because of unaccounted sale of scrap etc. have been made. 11. Whether the Ld.CIT(A) erred in observing that AO has also referred a loose paper, page

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

business receipts unless there are specific evidence ignoring the facts and circumstances of the case established by the Assessing Officer that in case of assessee addition 69A on the unexplained income because of unaccounted sale of scrap etc. have been made. 11. Whether the Ld.CIT(A) erred in observing that AO has also referred a loose paper, page