How many judgments cite CIT v. Sane & Doshi Enterprises?

38 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Sane & Doshi Enterprises (377 ITR 165), spanning 2016 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Sane & Doshi Enterprises come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 22, Section 23(5), Section 142(1), Section 250, Section 23.

CIT v. Sane & Doshi Enterprises

377 ITR 165High Court2015#3173 most cited

What is CIT v. Sane & Doshi Enterprises authority for?

Rental income from unsold property held by a real-estate developer is assessable under the head 'Income from House Property' and not as 'Business Income'. The treatment in books of account as stock-in-trade does not alter the income's character for tax purposes.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Sane & Doshi Enterprises · Section 23(5) · Section 22 · Section 143(3) · Section 263 · annual letting value · annual value · stock-in-trade · business income · house property income · unsold portion of property

Also reported as

58 Taxmann.com 111

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 22 Section 23(5)Section 142(1)Section 250 Section 23 Section 23(4)Section 263

Issues it is cited on

section 23(5)annual letting value annual value section 43c section 22 section 43ca revision u/s 263 malabar industrial stamp duty value section 23 section 24 erroneous and prejudicial

Judgments citing CIT v. Sane & Doshi Enterprises

KHINVASARA CHAVAN,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 5, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2402/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18 Khinvasara Chavan Acit, Circle – 5, Pune Shop No.1 & 2, Vijay Apartments, Vs. 22, Mukund Nagar, Pune – 411037 Pan: Aacfk3473H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohan R Potdar Department By : Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar, Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing : 30-03-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-03-2026 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

For Appellant: Shri Rohan R PotdarFor Respondent: Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar, Addl.CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 234

…t from para 3(a) of the said decision. Further, it is also noted from para 3(e) that letting of property is not the business of assessee therein. Further, the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay by placing reliance in the case of Sane & Doshi Enterprises reported in 377 ITR 165 (Bom.) dismissed the substantial question of law raised by the Revenue by holding that the said question does not give any rise to substantial question of law which is evident from para 3(f) of the said decision. It is pertinent to note that the facts in the case of Gundecha Builders (supra) before the Hon’ble High Court was that the assessee the…

STARSHINE LAND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,ANDHERI EAST, MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI-5, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2148/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadishassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 148Section 23(5)Section 263

…115 (SC)] to contend that lack of proper enquiry justifies revision u/s 263. The Ld. DR further relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Gundecha Builders [(2019) 102 taxmann.com 27 (Bom)] and CIT vs. Sane & Doshi Enterprises[(2015) 58 Taxmann.com 111 (Bombay)] to submit that the issue of notional ALV on unsold flats is a legally examinable issue and failure of the Assessing Officer to examine the same renders the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The legal pos…

PARAMJIT SINGH MOHANSINGH OBHAN ,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 28(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 4863/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantt & Shri. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Ashok J PatelFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan (SR.DR.)

Section 143(3)Section 250

…Builders (2008) 296 ITR 661 (Guj), Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd. (supra), and Ansal Housing Finance & Leasing Co. Ltd. (supra), and had ultimately relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT v. Sane & Doshi Enterprises (2015) 377 ITR 165 (Bom). In that case, the Hon’ble High Court held that rental income derived from 9 Paramjit Singh Mohansingh Obhan the unsold portion of property constructed by a real-estate developer is assessable under the head “Income from House Property” and not as “Business Income.” The Hon’ble Bombay High Court further observed that the treatment given in…

PRECIOUS BJUILDTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,BAREILLY vs. PCIT, , BAREILLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 66/LKW/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Sept 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.66/Lkw/2022 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18 Precious Buildtech Pvt Ltd V. Pcit Harmony Apartment, Adiacent Income Tax Department, To Bedi International School, Bareilly-243001. Dental College Road, Pilibhit Bypass Road, Bareilly-243001. Pan:Aagcp1255R अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कक और से/Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Adv प्रत्यर्थी कक और से /Respondent By: Shri Mazhar Akram, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई कक तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 24 07 2025 घोर्णा कक तारीख/ Date Of 30 09 2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mazhar Akram, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण ‘बी’ न्यायपीठ, लखनऊ। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “B”, LUCKNOW श्री कुल भारत, उपाध्यक्ष एवं श्री ननखखल चौिरी, लेखा सदस्य के समछ BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/ ITA No.66/LKW/2022 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18 Precious Buildtech Pvt Ltd v. PCIT Harmony Apartment, Adiacent Income Tax Department, to Bedi International School, Bareilly-243001. Dental College Road, Pilibhit bypass Road, Bareilly-243001. PAN:AAGCP1255R अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कक और से/Appellant by: Shri Rak…

RAMESH DUNGARSHI SHAH,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INOCME TAX, CIRCLE-3, , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1220/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri. Girish Agarwal, Am Ramesh Dungarshi Shah Deputy Commissioner Of Income 108, Shreedhar Apartment, Maulana Tax, Circle – 3, Kalyan Vs. 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, Murbad Azad Road, Dombivali, East, Thane – 421201. Road, Kalyan West – 421301. Pan/Gir No. Aavps0931K (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Devendra Jain, Adv. (Virtually) : Shri. Asif Karmali (Sr. Dr) Respondent By : 14.02.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 14.05.2025 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short) Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ For Short) 2015-16. 2. It Is Observed That The Assessee Has Filed This Present Appeal With A Delay Of 47 Days Beyond The Period Of Limitation For Which The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condoning The Delay Along With The Reasons Specified For The Delay. After Hearing The Rival Contentions, We Deem It Fit To Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal For The Reason That There Was ‘Sufficient Cause’ & Bonafide Reasons For The Delay. Delay Condoned.

For Appellant: Shri. Devendra Jain, Adv. (Virtually)For Respondent: 14.02.2025

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 23(1)(a)Section 23(4)(b)Section 23(5)Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM AND SHRI. GIRISH AGARWAL, AM Ramesh Dungarshi Shah Deputy Commissioner of Income 108, Shreedhar Apartment, Maulana Tax, Circle – 3, Kalyan Vs. 2nd Floor, Rani Mansion, Murbad Azad Road, Dombivali, East, Thane – 421201. Road, Kalyan West – 421301. PAN/GIR No. AAVPS0931K (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri. Devendra Jain, Adv. (Virtually) : Shri. Asif Karmali (Sr. DR) Respondent by : 14.02.2025 Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement : 14.05.2025 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This appeal has been filed by the asse…

DCIT, RANGE-3, LUCKNOW vs. M/S WELLDONE INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 406/LKW/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh.Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y.2017-18 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S Welldone Infrastructure Range-3, Lucknow Private Limited, Lucknow Pan:Aaacw6354Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. B.P. Yadav, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. Amit Singh Chauhan, Addl (Cit) & Sh. Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 10.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.04.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Lucknow Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Allowing The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Ao Under Section 143(3) On 19.12.2019. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Lucknow Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.2,26,72,571/- Without Appreciate The Fact That The Assessee Is Involved In The Business Of Developing Properties & Selling It & Is Earning Rental Income Which Is Incidental To The "Revenue From Business Operations" Of The Assessee. 2. Ld. Cit(A) Had Erred In Law & On Facts Ignoring The Fact That The Assessee, While Filing Original Return Of Income Had Itself Considered That Rental Are In The Nature Of Revenue From Business Operations.

For Appellant: Sh. B.P. Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Singh Chauhan, Addl (CIT) & Sh

Section 143(3)Section 22Section 250

…llate courts. With a view to assist the Hon’ble Bench, we would like to rely on certain case authorities, as under:- (i) Raj Dadarkar& Associates Vs. ACIT [ 2017-394 ITR 592-SC] (Placed at page 62 to 68 of the paper book) (ii) CIT Vs. Sane &Doshi Enterprises [377 ITR 165-Bom] (Placed at page 38 to 52 of the paper book) (iii) CIT Vs. Gundecha Builders[2019-102 Taxmann.Com 27-Bom] (Placed at page 53 to 55 of the paper book) (v) PCIT Vs. Banzai Estate Pvt. Ltd. [131 TLC 461-Bom] (Placed at page 56 to 61 of the paper book) (vi) ACIT Vs. Ashapura Developers [2019-67 TLC 020-ITAT MUM] (vii) CIT Vs. Oberon Edifices & Es…

CORONATE CONSTRUCTIONS,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , MUMBAI

ITA 1024/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Dharan Gandhi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 288A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/s. Coronate PCIT-27, 401, 4th Floor, Constructions, Ground Floor, Tower No.6, Meghdoot, Vs. Vashi Railway Station, Vallabhbaug Lane, Commercial Complex, Ghatkopar – East, Vashi, Mumbai – 400 077 Navi Mumbai – 400 703 PAN: AAEFC1996P (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Dharan Gandhi, A.R. Revenue by : Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, D.R. Date of Hearing : 15 . 09 . 2023 Date of Pronouncement : 09 . 11 . 2023 O R D E R Per : K…

M/S. RAVI DEVELOPMENTS,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2928/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S. Ravi Developments 76, Laxmi Palace, Mathuradas Road, Kandivali (West) Mumbai-400 067 Pan: Aaafr2516G ...... Appellant Vs. Acit Cc – 2, Ashar It Park, 6Th Floor, Road No. 16Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane Thane- 400 064 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Akshay Jain, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Ld. CIT-DR

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 22Section 250Section 43CSection 50C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s. Ravi Developments 76, Laxmi Palace, Mathuradas Road, Kandivali (west) Mumbai-400 067 PAN: AAAFR2516G ...... Appellant Vs. ACIT CC – 2, Ashar IT Park, 6th floor, Road No. 16Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane Thane- 400 064 ..... Respondent Appellant by : Shri Akshay Jain, Ld. AR Respondent by : Smt. Mahita Nair, Ld. CIT-DR Date of hearing : 28/06/2023 Date of pronouncement : 25/08/2023 O R D E R PER GAGAN GOYAL, A.M: This appeal by assessee is directed against…

PRIDE PURPLE PROPERTIES,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 783/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri Uma Shanker Prasad

Section 23(4)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “बी” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.783/PUN/2023 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Pride Purple Properties, 601, Orbit Plaza, New Prabhadevi Road, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400025 PAN : AAIFP0363M ......अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिाम / V/s. ACIT, Central Circle – 1(1), Pune ……प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Suhas Bora Revenue by : Shri Uma Shanker Prasad सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 03-08-2023 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronou…

NAHALCHAND LALOOCHAND PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY.COMM OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 5(2) (1) , MUMBAI

In the result, this Appeal is partly allowed, for statistical purposes”

ITA 1661/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Devendra JainFor Respondent: Shri Chetan Kacha

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 22Section 23(1)(c)Section 80

…ghtly pointed out by the Ld. AO in page no 3 of the impugned Assessment Order dated 22.12.2019; the famous landmark cases that can be referred to, in this regard, are as under: 1. 354 ITR 180 (Delhi) in case of M/s. Ansal Housing Finance & Leasing Co. Ltd. 2. 377 ITR 165 (Bombay) in case of M/s. Sane & Doshi Enterprises 5.1.6 Now in light of entire discussion made supra from sub-para no. 5.1 to 5.1.5, it is clear that this is totally a matter of verification and which the Ld. A.O. is directed to undertake 6 ITA. No. 1661/Mum/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 while giving effect to this order. Ld. A/R is also require…

PRASHASTI ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. PCIT (CENTRAL MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1397/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganesh आअसं. 1397/मुं/ 2022 ("न.व. 2017-18) Prashasti Enterprise, 4, Bhoomi Garden, Mahavir Nagar, Kanidvali (W), Mumbai 400 067. Pan: Aabap-2414-R ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Central) Mumbai -3, Room No.1901, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Mahavir Jain ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Jayant Jhaveri सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 11/10/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 06/01/2023 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir JainFor Respondent: Shri Jayant Jhaveri

Section 23Section 263

…ering judgment rendered in the case of CIT vs. Ansal Housing Finance & Leasing Company Ltd. (supra) and various other decisions, which inter-alia, includes decision in the case of CIT vs. Gundecha Builders, 102 CCH 426 (Bom), CIT vs. Sane & Doshi Enterprises, 377 ITR 165 (Bom), CIT vs. Neha Builders, 296 ITR 661(Guj) 4 and K. Subramanian, ITO & Another vs. Siemens India Ltd. 156 ITR 11 concluded that the annual letting value of flats held as stock-in-trade cannot be brought to tax under the head “house property”. While taking such view the Tribunal distinguished the decision rendered in the case of CIT vs. Ansal…

DCIT 27(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. M/S GOPURAM DEVELOPERS , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenues dismissed

ITA 1587/MUM/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

Section 143(3)Section 28Section 43C

…id receipts were to be brought to tax under the head house property (as claimed by the assessee) or as business income (as claimed by the revenue). The High Court after relying on its earlier order passed in the case of CIT Vs. Sane & Doshi Enterprises (2015) 377 ITR 165 (Bom), had observed, that in a case where 7 ITA 1587/Mum/2022 a real estate developer is in receipt of rental income in respect of a property held by him as stock-in-trade of its business as that of a real estate developer, the said rental receipts was to be assessed under the head house property. Accordingly, the issue before the High Court in…

NILESH KUMAR AGRAWAL,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(5), RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 116/RPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.116/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Nilesh Kumar Agrawal, Prop. M/S. Friends Construction, House No.107-108, Opp. Ravi Shankar, University Gate, Amanaka, Raipur (C.G.)-492 010 Pan : Afcpa2198G .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-4(5), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. N Singh, DR

Section 143(2)Section 22Section 23(1)Section 23(1)(a)Section 80C

…eceipts were to be brought to tax under the head “house property” (as claimed by the assessee) or as “business income” (as claimed by the revenue). The High Court after relying on its earlier order passed in the case of CIT Vs. Sane & Doshi Enterprises (2015) 377 ITR 165 (Bom), had observed, that in a case where a real estate developer is in receipt of rental income in respect of a property held by him as stock-in-trade of its business as that of a real estate developer, the said rental receipts was to be assessed under the head house property. Accordingly, the issue before the High Court in the aforesaid case wa…

SAI SIDDHANT DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. DCIT -CC -5(4) , MUMBAI

In the result , all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2193/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘SMC‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2187/Mum/2021 (Assessment Year :2014-15) Shree Sai Consultants Vs. DCIT CC-5(4) 1, Ram Kripa, Devji Bhimji Mumbai Lane, Mathuradas Road Kandivali (W) Mumbai – 400 067 PAN/GIR No.AAMFS8806J (Appellant) .. (Respondent) ITA No.2192/Mum/2021 (Assessment Year :2014-15) Sai Siddhant Developers Vs. DCIT CC-5(4) 1, Ram Kripa, Devji Bhimji Mumbai Lane, Mathuradas Road Kandivali (W) Mumbai – 400 067 PAN/GIR No.ABAFS5956Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shree Sai Sagar Consultants…

SAI SIDDHANT DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. DCIT -CC-5(4) , MUMBAI

In the result , all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2192/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Section 143(3)

M/S. SAI SIDDHI DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. DCIT -CC-5(40 , MUMBAI

In the result , all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2190/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Section 143(3)

SHREE SAI CONSULTANTS,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-5(4) , MUMBAI

In the result , all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2188/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Section 143(3)

ATUL JAIPRAKASH GOEL,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 474/PUN/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.474/Pun/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11

Section 14ASection 23(5)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH, ‘B’ PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.474/PUN/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Atul Jaiprakash Goel, Vs. DCIT, Circle-2, 3rd Floor, San Mahu Complex, Pune 5, Bund Garden Road, Opp. Poona Club – 411 001 PAN : AAWPG2106M Appellant Respondent Assessee by Shri Rajiv Thakkar Revenue by Shri M.G. Jasnani Date of hearing 21-06-2022 Date of pronouncement 22-06-2022 आदेश / ORDER PER R.S. SYAL, VP : This appeal by the assessee arises of the order dated 09-10-2017 passed by the…

DCIT CC 4(2), MUMBAI vs. ROCKFORT ESTATE DEVELOPERS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the Cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4091/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Cc-4(2) Vs M/S Rockfort Estate Room No. 1918, 19Th Developers Pvt Ltd Floor, Air India Bldg, 1,Leela Baug, Andheri – Nariman Point, Kurla, Mumbai – 400021. Mumbai – 400051. Pan/Gir No. : Aabcr7896K Appellant .. Respondent Co No. 72/Mum/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 4091/Mum/2019 A.Y 2014-15) M/S Rockfort Estate Vs Dcit, Cc-4(2) Developers Pvt Ltd Room No. 1918, 19Th 1, Leela Baug,Andheri Floor, Air India Bldg, – Kurla, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400051. Mumbai – 400021. Pan/Gir No. : Aabcr7896K Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Mr.Rahul Hakani.Ar Revenue By : Mr.S.N. Kabra.Dr Date Of Hearing 28.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25.04.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-52

For Appellant: Mr.Rahul Hakani.ARFor Respondent: Mr.S.N. Kabra.DR

Section 14Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 22Section 23Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

…Learned CIT(A) has rightly applied the principles laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shambhu Investments Pvt. Ltd. (supra). 11. We have also considered the Judgment passed by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sane and Doshi Enterprises (377 ITR 165), wherein it was held that income from house property – business income – income from property or business income – assessee engaged in construction of property – unsold property let out – rent assessable as income from house property. Even as per the aforementioned decision rental income was treated as ‘income from house property’. Learned CIT(A…

DCIT CC 4(2), MUMBAI vs. K RAHEJA COPR PVT LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 4085/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ravish Soodk. Raheja Corporate Services Acit-14(2)(1), Room No. 432, 4Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. C-30, G- Block, Opp. Sidbi, Bkc, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Bandra, Mumbai-400 051 Road, Mumbai-400 020. Vs. Pan: Aabcn 9309B Appellant Respondent K. Raheja Corporate Pvt. Ltd., Dcit- Central Circle 4(2), Room No. 1918, 19Th Plot No. C-30, G-Block, Opp. Sidbi, Bkc, Bandra – (E), Floor, Air India Building, Mumbai-400 051 Nariman Point, Mumbai- Vs. 400 021. Pan: Aaacp0522B Appellant Respondent Dcit, Central Circle - M/S K. Raheja Corp. Pvt. (2)(1), Central Range -4 Ltd., Plot No. C-30, Block -G, Pr.Cit (C)-2 Bkc, Bandra (Eest), Room No. 1918, 19Th Mumbai-400 051 Vs. Floor, Air India Building, Pan: Aaacp0522B Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021. Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Madhur Aggrawal (Ar) Revenue By : Shri. Shiddaramappa (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 12.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.10.2021

For Appellant: Shri. Madhur Aggrawal (AR)For Respondent: Shri. Shiddaramappa (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 14A

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER K. Raheja Corporate Services ACIT-14(2)(1), Room No. 432, 4th Floor, Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. C-30, G- Block, Opp. SIDBI, BKC, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Bandra, Mumbai-400 051 Road, Mumbai-400 020. Vs. PAN: AABCN 9309B Appellant Respondent K. Raheja Corporate Pvt. Ltd., DCIT- Central Circle 4(2), Room No. 1918, 19th Plot No. C-30, G-Block, Opp. SIDBI, BKC, Bandra – (E), Floor, Air India Building, Mumbai-400 051 Nariman Point, Mumbai- Vs. 400 021. PAN: AAACP0522B Appellant Respondent D…

Showing 1–20 of 38 · Page 1 of 2