WALCHAND PEOPLE FIRST LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO - 2(3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2543/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10)

house property. The CIT(A) held that the subsidiary company merged with the assessee company on 1st April 2009 i.e. immediately after the end of the previous year. The CIT(A) held that it is for the assessee company to decide how it would conduct its business and A.O can question the manner of conducting its business only where there

ITO 2(3)(4), MUMBAI vs. WALCHAND PEOPLE FIRST LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2543/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10)

house property. The CIT(A) held that the subsidiary company merged with the assessee company on 1st April 2009 i.e. immediately after the end of the previous year. The CIT(A) held that it is for the assessee company to decide how it would conduct its business and A.O can question the manner of conducting its business only where there

M/S ARENA ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD, 41(4)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for stati...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

section 40A(2)(b) cannot apply in its case because they made the claim of Interest e in its case because they made the claim of Interest e in its case because they made the claim of Interest expenditure under the head "Income from House Property

M/S ARENA ENTERPRISES ,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 41(4)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for stati...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

section 40A(2)(b) cannot apply in its case because they made the claim of Interest e in its case because they made the claim of Interest e in its case because they made the claim of Interest expenditure under the head "Income from House Property

M/S ARENA ENTERPRISES ,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, , MUMBAI-17

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Arena Enterprise V. Pcit –Mumbai-17 Cts No. 20, Arena Space, Village Majas Room No. 120, 1St Floor Jvlr, Behind Majas Depot Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C-43 Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai - 400060 G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra(E), Mumbai - 400051 Pan: Aanfa3473E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Ms. Mrugakshi Joshi Department Represented By : Shri Jagadish Jangid

House Property u/s. 24(b) to which the provisions of section 40A(2)(b) do no apply. (ii) The Bank

DY..C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S STATE BANK OF MYSORE, BANGALORE

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

housing in India. On perusal of the findings of the coordinate bench in assessee's own case for earlier years on the impugned issue we notice that this issue has been allowed on the ground that the principal of consistency should be followed and that the assessee's claim from AY 2008-09 following the same methodology has not been

STATE BANK OF MYSORE,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

housing in India. On perusal of the findings of the coordinate bench in assessee's own case for earlier years on the impugned issue we notice that this issue has been allowed on the ground that the principal of consistency should be followed and that the assessee's claim from AY 2008-09 following the same methodology has not been

ACIT- 3(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. MM/S SANOFI INDIA LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS AVENTIS PHARMA LTD)., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

House property. The net result would be Nill. There is no change in the tax rate for both the heads of income. Therefore, the claim of the assessee is allowed in this regard considering the above discussions. 26. With regard to Ground No. 6, Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that this ground is not pressed, accordingly the same

M/S SANOFI INDIA LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS AVENTIS PHARMA LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT RG 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

House property. The net result would be Nill. There is no change in the tax rate for both the heads of income. Therefore, the claim of the assessee is allowed in this regard considering the above discussions. 26. With regard to Ground No. 6, Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that this ground is not pressed, accordingly the same

LATE SUNIL D GULATI,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -CENTRAL CIRCLE-39 , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Late Sunil D Gulati, Cit-Central Circle 39, 603, Elco Residency, Almeda Room No. 1924, 19Th Floor, Vs. Park Behind Elco Market, Air India Building, Nariman Bandra (West), Point, Churchgate, Mumbai-400050. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aehpg 8703 R Appellant Respondent

section 40A(3) Further, the AO has also invoked provisions of section 40A(3) Further, the AO has also invoked provisions of section 40A(3) of the I.T.Act and has disallowed an amount of Rs. of the I.T.Act and has disallowed an amount of Rs. of the I.T.Act and has disallowed an amount