DCIT- 8(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. PIRAMAL ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

business of Service Centre and leasing of Premises, filed its return of income on 15.10.2010 declaring total income at Rs. 28,63,29,970/-. Case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices were issued. Assessment of the assessee was completed at a figure of Rs. 48, 78, 18,870/- after certain disallowances

DCIT CIR 3(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

business.\n5.\nThat Assessing officer has erred in considering Rs.\n14,52,17,933/- as income from other sources and thereby not allowing\nthe deduction u/s 80IAB of the Act.\n6.\nThe observation and findings of the Assessing Officer are\nincorrect and are based on surmises and conjectures and cannot be\njustified by any material on record

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

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

disallowed the claim of the\nassessee that rent received of Rs.2,82,16,861/-was income from House\nproperty and treated the same as income from Business

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

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

disallowed the claim of the\nassessee that rent received of Rs.2,82,16,861/-was income from House\nproperty and treated the same as income from Business

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

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

disallowed the claim of the\nassessee that rent received of Rs.2,82,16,861/-was income from House\nproperty and treated the same as income from Business

SANE & DOSHI ENTERPARISES,MUMBAI vs. JT CIT 17(3), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

business and that the surplus accommodation due to its shifting of branches outside Madras was let out. The Income-tax Officer rejected the contention and treated this income as income from property disallowing

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) ..

business and profession and claimed the same under the head income from house property in its computation of income. 25 ITA 3992 to 3994/MUM/2018 DCIT Vs. M/s Phoenix Mills Ltd. 15.3. However, the Id. A.O. while passing the assessment order disallowed

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

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

disallowed the claim of the\nassessee that rent received of Rs.2,82,16,861/-was income from House\nproperty and treated the same as income from Business