IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.4365/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year : 2014-15)

Pankaj Enterprises, 124-A, Gokul Arcade, Subhash Road, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai - 400057 ............... Appellant PAN : AACFP3044K v/s Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax ……………… Respondent Circle-41(1)(1), Mumbai Assessee by : Shri S.L. Jain Shri Satish Jain Revenue by : Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr.DR Date of Hearing – 14/08/2025 Date of Order - 02/09/2025 O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M.

The assessee has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dated 06/06/2025, passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-48, Mumbai, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2014-15.

2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: –

“1. Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding taxation of Rs.1,21,48,483/- under the head "House Property being charges recovered by appellant under a separate agreement dated March 1^st 2013 from M/s. Aditya Birla Minacs Worldwide Ltd for making available 'functional infrastructure' for 'call center' acquired specifically at cost of Rs 6,79,99,690/-instead of head "business income".

Income from letting out property assessed, separately, under the head 'House Property'.

2. Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding disallowance of expenses of Rs.1,63,80,770/- including depreciation Rs 1,31,46,816/- claimed under the head "Business and Profession" as income being, held to be assessable under the head 'House Property' Appellant received' Common Maintenance charges' Rs 30,53,665/-

and offered as 'business income'.

3. Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding disallowance of Municipal taxes Rs.56,85,570/- claimed against Rent received Rs 4,52,00,467/- although paid during the year for Current Year Rs.13,31,107/- and Rs.43,54,463/- paid on 15.04.2014. Appellant paid Municipal Tax R$4,08,985/- for A.Y.2013-14 on 25.07.2013. Appellant thus paid Rs.17,40,092/- which warranted allowance in A.Y.2014-15. It is prayed that Rs.43,54,463/- paid on 15.04.2014 be directed to be allowed in A.Y.2015-16.

4. Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding disallowance of Rs.1,09,39,229/- out of the interest claimed against "house property" income without appreciating the fact that all the borrowed funds are being used either for acquisition of house property or for creating facilities which is offered to tax under the head "income from house property" or "business income" hence whole of the interest is allowable as deduction.

5 Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding disallowance of Rs.2 Lakhs being insurance premium paid by appellant on insurance policy of one of the partner without properly appreciating the fact that Insurance Policy was taken to comply loan condition of loan granted to Appellant.

6. Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding disallowance payment of interest of Rs.4,09,800/- to M/s. Bajaj Finance LTD. without deduction of TDS, without properly appreciating the fact that interest was deducted out of loan amount and payee being a Quoted Company, assessed to tax and interest is duly included in its return of income no disallowance was justified.

7. Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding addition of Rs.12,01,943/- in the annual let out value of the property let out to M/s. Masterclock Works Pvt. Ltd one of the partner of the appellant on the plea that compensation charged is at Rs.18.85 Per Sq. Ft instead of compensation charged to others at 44 Per Sq. Ft without properly appreciating that Annual let out value be 'actual rent received' or 'ALV determined by municipal authority'. Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering difference in nature of property let out.”

3. The issue arising in grounds no.1 and 2, raised in assessee’s appeal, pertains to the additions made to the total income of the assessee by considering the receipts as “Income from House Property”.

4. The brief facts of the case pertaining to this iss