Commissioner of Income Tax v. J. K. Investors (Bombay) Ltd.

S.P. Corporation, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 11(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the Assessment Years

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

…for the Court to go beyond the letter of the law and try to read into the provision more than what is already provided for. We may also record that even the Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. J. K. Investors (Bombay) Ltd., [(2001) 248 ITR 723 (Bom.)] categorically rejected the formula of addition of notional interest while determining the “fair rent”. It is, thus, manifest that various Courts have held a consistent view that notional interest cannot form part of actual rent. Hence, there is no justification to take a different view that what has been stated in Asian Hotels Limited [20…

ACIT 11(1), Mumbai vs. S.P. Corporation, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the Assessment Years

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

…for the Court to go beyond the letter of the law and try to read into the provision more than what is already provided for. We may also record that even the Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. J. K. Investors (Bombay) Ltd., [(2001) 248 ITR 723 (Bom.)] categorically rejected the formula of addition of notional interest while determining the “fair rent”. It is, thus, manifest that various Courts have held a consistent view that notional interest cannot form part of actual rent. Hence, there is no justification to take a different view that what has been stated in Asian Hotels Limited [20…

S.P Corporation, Mumbai vs. ACIT RG 11(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the Assessment Years

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

…for the Court to go beyond the letter of the law and try to read into the provision more than what is already provided for. We may also record that even the Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. J. K. Investors (Bombay) Ltd., [(2001) 248 ITR 723 (Bom.)] categorically rejected the formula of addition of notional interest while determining the “fair rent”. It is, thus, manifest that various Courts have held a consistent view that notional interest cannot form part of actual rent. Hence, there is no justification to take a different view that what has been stated in Asian Hotels Limited [20…

S.P Corporation, Mumbai vs. ACIT RG 11(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the Assessment Years

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

…for the Court to go beyond the letter of the law and try to read into the provision more than what is already provided for. We may also record that even the Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. J. K. Investors (Bombay) Ltd., [(2001) 248 ITR 723 (Bom.)] categorically rejected the formula of addition of notional interest while determining the “fair rent”. It is, thus, manifest that various Courts have held a consistent view that notional interest cannot form part of actual rent. Hence, there is no justification to take a different view that what has been stated in Asian Hotels Limited [20…

S.P Corporation, Mumbai vs. ACIT RG 11(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the Assessment Years

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

…for the Court to go beyond the letter of the law and try to read into the provision more than what is already provided for. We may also record that even the Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. J. K. Investors (Bombay) Ltd., [(2001) 248 ITR 723 (Bom.)] categorically rejected the formula of addition of notional interest while determining the “fair rent”. It is, thus, manifest that various Courts have held a consistent view that notional interest cannot form part of actual rent. Hence, there is no justification to take a different view that what has been stated in Asian Hotels Limited [20…

Tulsi Shipping P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 2(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

…(supra) does not help the case of Revenue, having regard to the instant fact-situation. 10. Further, in Assessment Year 2008-09, the CIT(A) has also referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs J.K. Investors (Bombay) Ltd., 248 ITR 723 (Bom.) to profess that where the rental income is earned alongwith service charges from the rented property, the same are liable to be assessed as „income from house property‟. We have carefully perused the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of J.K. Investors (Bombay) Ltd. (supra) and find that the same is totally M/s. Tulsi Sh…

ACIT - 17(2), Mumbai vs. Moti Govind Bhatia, Mumbai

…here were no comparable cases with reference to profits earned from the property or to the cost of construction. The Hon'bie High Court had also referred to the judgment of Hon'bie High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT v. J.K. Investors (Bombay) Ltd. [2000] 248 ITR 723/112 Taxman 107 in which the Hon'bie High Court held that, while deciding fair rent, the various factors could be taken into account. Therefore, in our view, the fair rental value has to be determined on the basis of comparative cases in the locality and other relevant factors. The return on investment may not always be a reliable indicator of fai…

ITO 14(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Altitus Management Advisors P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ito 14(1)(1) M/S Altitus Managment R. No. 431, 4Th Floor, Advisors P. Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Metropolitan Building Block Mumbai: 400 020. E, 5Th Floor, Bandra Kurla Vs. Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400 051 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aafca2213B (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

…while disposing of the appeal of the assessee for A.Y 2010-11, after placing reliance on the various orders of the coordinate benches of the Tribunal and the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. J.K. Investors (Bom) Ltd. (2001) 248 ITR 723 (Bom), had observed that as the actual rent received or receivable by the assessee in respect of the aforesaid property was found to be in excess of the sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to have been let out from year to year, and the ALV had been determined under Sec. 23(1)(b), therefore, no addition in respect of the notio…

Tulsi Shipping P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 2(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed, as above

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri C.N. Prasad

…(supra) does not help the case of Revenue, having regard to the instant fact-situation. 10. Further, in Assessment Year 2008-09, the CIT(A) has also referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs J.K. Investors (Bombay) Ltd., 248 ITR 723 (Bom.) to profess that where the rental income is earned alongwith service charges from the rented property, the 10 M/s. Tulsi Shipping Pvt. Ltd. ITA Nos. 5708/Mum/2015 & 5558/Mum/2016 same are liable to be assessed as ‘income from house property’. We have carefully perused the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of J.K. Invest…

Tulsi Shipping P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 2(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed, as above

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri C.N. Prasad

…(supra) does not help the case of Revenue, having regard to the instant fact-situation. 10. Further, in Assessment Year 2008-09, the CIT(A) has also referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs J.K. Investors (Bombay) Ltd., 248 ITR 723 (Bom.) to profess that where the rental income is earned alongwith service charges from the rented property, the 10 M/s. Tulsi Shipping Pvt. Ltd. ITA Nos. 5708/Mum/2015 & 5558/Mum/2016 same are liable to be assessed as ‘income from house property’. We have carefully perused the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of J.K. Invest…

ITO 3(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Bombay Sealink Builders P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose and Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ashwani Taneja

…terest free deposit as part of rental income on account of letting out of properties while computing ALV. The Coordinate Bench following the decisions of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Tip Top Typography (supra) and CIT Vs. JK Investors [248 ITR 723] held as under : (A.Ys 2006-07, 2002-03 and 2002-03 resply.) M/s Bombay Sealink Builders Pvt. Ltd. 13. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below and find that this aspect of the matter has been considered by the ld. CIT (Appeals) and deleted the addition made towards notional interest while computing Annual…

Anudeep Enterprises P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 3(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G S Pannu & Shri Ravish Soodassessment Year : 2006-07 Anudeep Enterprises P Ltd Ito Ward 3(1)(1), 801, Shanudeep, Mumbai Vs. 10 Altamount Road, Mumbai- 400 026 Pan Aaaca1338G (Appellant) Respondent)

…statute it would be unsafe for the court to go beyond the letter of the law and try to read into the provision more than what is already provided for. We may also record that even the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. J.K. Investors (Bombay) Ltd. [2001] 248 ITR 723 (Bom) categorically rejected the formula of addition of notional interest while determining the ‘fair rent’ … It is, thus, manifest that various courts have held a consistent view that notional interest cannot form part of actual rent. Hence, there is no justification to take a different view that what has been stated in Asian Hotels Ltd. [2010]…

DCIT 29(1), Mumbai vs. Dinesh M Shah, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Cn Prasad & Shri Ashwani Taneja: (A.Y : 2010-11) Dcit 29(1) Vs. Dinesh M Shah R.No.108, 1St Floor, C-10 Bldg., Prop. M/S Mehula Pratyakshakar Bhavan Enterprises Bandra Kurla Complex 104, Arnath Sravodya Nagar Bandra (E) Jain Mandir, Mulund (W) Mumbai – 400 051 Mumbai – 400 080 Pan : Aagps5149G (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Devendra Jain प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से Revenue By : Mrs Beena Santosh सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/02/2017 घोषणा की तारीख Date Of Pronouncement : 22/02/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per C.N.Prasad (J.M.) : This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals)-40, Mumbai Dated 30.03.2015 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. The Revenue In Its Appeal Has Raised The Following Grounds : “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Disallowance Of Salary Of Rs.10,11,674/- Without Appreciating The Fact That The Assessee Has Not Proved As To How The Excess Salary Expenditure Laid For Planning Of Expansion Of The Business & As To How The Same Did

…l interest on interest free security deposit. While holding so, the ld. CIT (Appeals) considered the decisions of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs Tip Top Typography (2014) 48 taxmann.com 191(Bom.) and CIT v JK Investors (Bombay) Ltd (2000) 248 ITR 723 (Bom.) 12. The ld. DR vehemently supported the orders of the assessing officer and the counsel for the assessee supported the orders of the ld. CIT (Appeals) and also placed reliance on above decisions of the jurisdictional high court. 13. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below and find that this aspect…

DCIT 14(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Milestone City Complex P.Ltd, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Amit Shukla (Jm)

…ssee. Accordingly he computed notional interest on the deposits and added the same to the rent received by the assessee. The Ld CIT(A) deleted the same by following the decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of J.K. Investors (Bombay) Ltd (248 ITR 723). Aggrieved, the revenue has filed these appeals. 3. We heard the parties and perused the record. The Ld D.R supported the orders passed by the AO. On the other hand, the Ld A.R submitted that the question of adding notional interest on the rental deposits to ascertain fair market value of the property shall arise only if the Annual Letting Valu…

ACIT 17(2), Mumbai vs. Jagshi J Chheda, Mumbai

In the result, all of the appeals filed by the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09

…est to the Income from House Property. The assessee has relied upon following judgments: CIT vs Asian Hotels Ltd 323 ITR 490 (Delhi- FB) 1. 2. Trivoli Investments & Trading CO Ltd ITA No 2808/2809/Mum/1996 dated 13.4.2011 3. CIT vs J.K. Investors (Bombay) Ltd 248 ITR 723 (Bom) 4. M. V. Sonavala vs. CIT 177 ITR 246 (Bom.) 5. CIT vs. Prabhabati Bansali 141 ITR 419 (Cal.) 6. Indersons Leathers Pvt Ltd vs AddI CIT 295 ITR 295 (AT- Amritsar) 7. CIT vs. Satya Co. Ltd. 140 CTR 569 (Cal) In the recent Delhi full Bench judgement in the case of CIT vs Asian Hotels Ltd 323 ITR 490 it has been held that there is no scope in…

Jagshi J. Chheda, Mumbai vs. A.C.I.T. Circle - 17(2), Mumbai

In the result, all of the appeals filed by the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09

…est to the Income from House Property. The assessee has relied upon following judgments: CIT vs Asian Hotels Ltd 323 ITR 490 (Delhi- FB) 1. 2. Trivoli Investments & Trading CO Ltd ITA No 2808/2809/Mum/1996 dated 13.4.2011 3. CIT vs J.K. Investors (Bombay) Ltd 248 ITR 723 (Bom) 4. M. V. Sonavala vs. CIT 177 ITR 246 (Bom.) 5. CIT vs. Prabhabati Bansali 141 ITR 419 (Cal.) 6. Indersons Leathers Pvt Ltd vs AddI CIT 295 ITR 295 (AT- Amritsar) 7. CIT vs. Satya Co. Ltd. 140 CTR 569 (Cal) In the recent Delhi full Bench judgement in the case of CIT vs Asian Hotels Ltd 323 ITR 490 it has been held that there is no scope in…

DCIT Cir 7(1), Mumbai vs. Percept Finserve P.Ltd, Mumbai

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

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Ramlal Negi (Jm)

…dition by following decision rendered by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Moni Kumar Subba (333 ITR 38) and also decision rendered by Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal by following decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of J.K. Investors (248 ITR 723). 5. During the course of hearing learned Departmental Representative placed reliance on the decision rendered by Hon'ble P&H High Court in the case of CIT Vs. K. Streetlite Electric Corporation ( 20 taxmann.com 532). 6. We noticed that learned CIT(A) has not brought out the facts relating to the property under consideration. The annual value o…

Ranjit H. Bhavnani, Mumbai vs. DCIT 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita Nos.8413 To 8415/Mum/2011 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2003-04, 2004-05 & 2008-09) Smt. Mala Ranjit Bhavnani, 3, Vs. Ito-12(2)(2), Mumbai-20 Buckley Court, 5, Wodhouse Road, Mumbai-400001 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aafpb 1108 B (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.3698/Mum/2012 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2007-008) Ranjit H. Bhavnani, 3, Buckley Vs. Dcit-3(3) Mumbai-20 Court, 5, Wodhouse Road, Mumbai-400001 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aacpb 8459 L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Nitesh Joshi याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Peeyush Sonkar सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 09/12/2015 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 31/03/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A), Mumbai, For The Assessment Years 2003-04, 2004-05, 2007-08 & 2008-09, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.143(3) Of The I.T.Act. 2. Common Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee In All The Years Under Consideration, Therefore, All The Appeals Were Heard & Are Now

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ ‘बी’, म ुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JM आमकय अऩीर सं./ITA Nos.8413 to 8415/Mum/2011 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2003-04, 2004-05 & 2008-09) Smt. Mala Ranjit Bhavnani, 3, Vs. ITO-12(2)(2), Mumbai-20 Buckley Court, 5, Wodhouse Road, Mumbai-400001 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ PAN/GIR No. : AAFPB 1108 B (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. AND आमकय अऩीर सं./ITA No.3698/Mum/2012 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2007-008) Ranjit H. Bhavnani, 3, Buckley Vs. DCIT-3(3) Mumbai-20 Court, 5,…

Mala Ranjit Bhavnani, Mumbai vs. ITO 12(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita Nos.8413 To 8415/Mum/2011 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2003-04, 2004-05 & 2008-09) Smt. Mala Ranjit Bhavnani, 3, Vs. Ito-12(2)(2), Mumbai-20 Buckley Court, 5, Wodhouse Road, Mumbai-400001 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aafpb 1108 B (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.3698/Mum/2012 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2007-008) Ranjit H. Bhavnani, 3, Buckley Vs. Dcit-3(3) Mumbai-20 Court, 5, Wodhouse Road, Mumbai-400001 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aacpb 8459 L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Nitesh Joshi याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Peeyush Sonkar सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 09/12/2015 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 31/03/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A), Mumbai, For The Assessment Years 2003-04, 2004-05, 2007-08 & 2008-09, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.143(3) Of The I.T.Act. 2. Common Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee In All The Years Under Consideration, Therefore, All The Appeals Were Heard & Are Now

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ ‘बी’, म ुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JM आमकय अऩीर सं./ITA Nos.8413 to 8415/Mum/2011 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2003-04, 2004-05 & 2008-09) Smt. Mala Ranjit Bhavnani, 3, Vs. ITO-12(2)(2), Mumbai-20 Buckley Court, 5, Wodhouse Road, Mumbai-400001 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ PAN/GIR No. : AAFPB 1108 B (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. AND आमकय अऩीर सं./ITA No.3698/Mum/2012 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2007-008) Ranjit H. Bhavnani, 3, Buckley Vs. DCIT-3(3) Mumbai-20 Court, 5,…

Mala Ranjit Bhavnani, Mumbai vs. ITO 12(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita Nos.8413 To 8415/Mum/2011 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2003-04, 2004-05 & 2008-09) Smt. Mala Ranjit Bhavnani, 3, Vs. Ito-12(2)(2), Mumbai-20 Buckley Court, 5, Wodhouse Road, Mumbai-400001 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aafpb 1108 B (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.3698/Mum/2012 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2007-008) Ranjit H. Bhavnani, 3, Buckley Vs. Dcit-3(3) Mumbai-20 Court, 5, Wodhouse Road, Mumbai-400001 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aacpb 8459 L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Nitesh Joshi याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Peeyush Sonkar सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 09/12/2015 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 31/03/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A), Mumbai, For The Assessment Years 2003-04, 2004-05, 2007-08 & 2008-09, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.143(3) Of The I.T.Act. 2. Common Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee In All The Years Under Consideration, Therefore, All The Appeals Were Heard & Are Now

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ ‘बी’, म ुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JM आमकय अऩीर सं./ITA Nos.8413 to 8415/Mum/2011 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2003-04, 2004-05 & 2008-09) Smt. Mala Ranjit Bhavnani, 3, Vs. ITO-12(2)(2), Mumbai-20 Buckley Court, 5, Wodhouse Road, Mumbai-400001 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ PAN/GIR No. : AAFPB 1108 B (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. AND आमकय अऩीर सं./ITA No.3698/Mum/2012 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2007-008) Ranjit H. Bhavnani, 3, Buckley Vs. DCIT-3(3) Mumbai-20 Court, 5,…