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 property’. [CIT v Ansal\nHousing Finance & Leasing Co. Ltd (2016) 72 Taxman.com 254]. Thus,\nthe AO is not justified in treating the rental receipts of Rs.3,95,73,709/-\nas business receipts and deny the Appellant standard deduction\namounting to Rs.1,18,06,775/- allowable under section 24(a) of the Act.\n13. ITA 3398/MUM/2024

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 property’. [CIT v Ansal\nHousing Finance & Leasing Co. Ltd (2016) 72 Taxman.com 254]. Thus,\nthe AO is not justified in treating the rental receipts of Rs.3,95,73,709/-\nas business receipts and deny the Appellant standard deduction\namounting to Rs.1,18,06,775/- allowable under section 24(a) of the Act.\n13. ITA 3398/MUM/2024

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)

68,335 1,96,834 1,96,834 A.R.Ruia Group Personal Expenses of 23,61,443 2,36,144 2,36,144 B.R.Ruia Group Expenses for Mogra 14,22,571 14,22,571 - Shop Expenses for Penthouse 18,46,165 18,46,165 1,84,617 Total 75,98,514 37,01,714 6,17,594 Particulars Expense Expense Expenses

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)

68,335 1,96,834 1,96,834 A.R.Ruia Group Personal Expenses of 23,61,443 2,36,144 2,36,144 B.R.Ruia Group Expenses for Mogra 14,22,571 14,22,571 - Shop Expenses for Penthouse 18,46,165 18,46,165 1,84,617 Total 75,98,514 37,01,714 6,17,594 Particulars Expense Expense Expenses

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)

68,335 1,96,834 1,96,834 A.R.Ruia Group Personal Expenses of 23,61,443 2,36,144 2,36,144 B.R.Ruia Group Expenses for Mogra 14,22,571 14,22,571 - Shop Expenses for Penthouse 18,46,165 18,46,165 1,84,617 Total 75,98,514 37,01,714 6,17,594 Particulars Expense Expense Expenses

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)

68,335 1,96,834 1,96,834 A.R.Ruia Group Personal Expenses of 23,61,443 2,36,144 2,36,144 B.R.Ruia Group Expenses for Mogra 14,22,571 14,22,571 - Shop Expenses for Penthouse 18,46,165 18,46,165 1,84,617 Total 75,98,514 37,01,714 6,17,594 Particulars Expense Expense Expenses

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)

68,335 1,96,834 1,96,834 A.R.Ruia Group Personal Expenses of 23,61,443 2,36,144 2,36,144 B.R.Ruia Group Expenses for Mogra 14,22,571 14,22,571 - Shop Expenses for Penthouse 18,46,165 18,46,165 1,84,617 Total 75,98,514 37,01,714 6,17,594 Particulars Expense Expense Expenses

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)

68,335 1,96,834 1,96,834 A.R.Ruia Group Personal Expenses of 23,61,443 2,36,144 2,36,144 B.R.Ruia Group Expenses for Mogra 14,22,571 14,22,571 - Shop Expenses for Penthouse 18,46,165 18,46,165 1,84,617 Total 75,98,514 37,01,714 6,17,594 Particulars Expense Expense Expenses

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)

68,335 1,96,834 1,96,834 A.R.Ruia Group Personal Expenses of 23,61,443 2,36,144 2,36,144 B.R.Ruia Group Expenses for Mogra 14,22,571 14,22,571 - Shop Expenses for Penthouse 18,46,165 18,46,165 1,84,617 Total 75,98,514 37,01,714 6,17,594 Particulars Expense Expense Expenses

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)

68,335 1,96,834 1,96,834 A.R.Ruia Group Personal Expenses of 23,61,443 2,36,144 2,36,144 B.R.Ruia Group Expenses for Mogra 14,22,571 14,22,571 - Shop Expenses for Penthouse 18,46,165 18,46,165 1,84,617 Total 75,98,514 37,01,714 6,17,594 Particulars Expense Expense Expenses

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)

68,335 1,96,834 1,96,834 A.R.Ruia Group Personal Expenses of 23,61,443 2,36,144 2,36,144 B.R.Ruia Group Expenses for Mogra 14,22,571 14,22,571 - Shop Expenses for Penthouse 18,46,165 18,46,165 1,84,617 Total 75,98,514 37,01,714 6,17,594 Particulars Expense Expense Expenses

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

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

house property. ii. With respect to the deduction of Municipal taxes, there is no requirement for reducing the income of the assessee where the learned assessing officer has estimated the percentage of the cost of the equity as rate of return on the investment. In fact, the deduction of municipal taxes is inbuilt in the taxability of 5% estimated

MOHAN GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRLE - 5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

house property. ii. With respect to the deduction of Municipal taxes, there is no requirement for reducing the income of the assessee where the learned assessing officer has estimated the percentage of the cost of the equity as rate of return on the investment. In fact, the deduction of municipal taxes is inbuilt in the taxability of 5% estimated

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

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

house property. ii. With respect to the deduction of Municipal taxes, there is no requirement for reducing the income of the assessee where the learned assessing officer has estimated the percentage of the cost of the equity as rate of return on the investment. In fact, the deduction of municipal taxes is inbuilt in the taxability of 5% estimated

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

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

house property. ii. With respect to the deduction of Municipal taxes, there is no requirement for reducing the income of the assessee where the learned assessing officer has estimated the percentage of the cost of the equity as rate of return on the investment. In fact, the deduction of municipal taxes is inbuilt in the taxability of 5% estimated

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

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

house property. ii. With respect to the deduction of Municipal taxes, there is no requirement for reducing the income of the assessee where the learned assessing officer has estimated the percentage of the cost of the equity as rate of return on the investment. In fact, the deduction of municipal taxes is inbuilt in the taxability of 5% estimated

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

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

house property. ii. With respect to the deduction of Municipal taxes, there is no requirement for reducing the income of the assessee where the learned assessing officer has estimated the percentage of the cost of the equity as rate of return on the investment. In fact, the deduction of municipal taxes is inbuilt in the taxability of 5% estimated

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

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

house property. ii. With respect to the deduction of Municipal taxes, there is no requirement for reducing the income of the assessee where the learned assessing officer has estimated the percentage of the cost of the equity as rate of return on the investment. In fact, the deduction of municipal taxes is inbuilt in the taxability of 5% estimated