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

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

property in order to take advantage of standard\ndeduction u/s 24(a) of the Act. Accordingly, he relying on above\nfacts and some judicial pronouncements, disallowed the claim of the\nassessee that rent received of Rs.2,82,16,861/-was income from House

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

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

property in order to take advantage of standard\ndeduction u/s 24(a) of the Act. Accordingly, he relying on above\nfacts and some judicial pronouncements, disallowed the claim of the\nassessee that rent received of Rs.2,82,16,861/-was income from House

MRS ALKA PANDEY,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -25(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Mrs. Alka Pandey, Asst. Cit-25(2), Maitri – Plot No. 10, Jvpd Scheme, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Vs. Vile Parle (West), Bandra (East), Mumbai-400049. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Agepp 1076 H Appellant Respondent

house property and disallowing income from house property and disallowing 30% of deduction 30% of deduction u/s 24(a) on the same

ISLAND STAR MALL DEVELOPES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 6(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

House Property". ITA Nos. 2246 to2251 & 2352 to 2357 /Mum/2023 M/s Island Star Mall Developers Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. 2. Without prejudice to ground No.1, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not holding that the other expenses amounting to Rs.1,92,20,831 is required to be allowed under the head business income, which were suo-moto disallowed

ISLAND STAR MALL DEVELOPES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI SUBURBAN vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 6(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

House Property". ITA Nos. 2246 to2251 & 2352 to 2357 /Mum/2023 M/s Island Star Mall Developers Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. 2. Without prejudice to ground No.1, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not holding that the other expenses amounting to Rs.1,92,20,831 is required to be allowed under the head business income, which were suo-moto disallowed

ISLAND STAR MALL DEVELOPES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI SUBURBAN vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 6(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

House Property". ITA Nos. 2246 to2251 & 2352 to 2357 /Mum/2023 M/s Island Star Mall Developers Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. 2. Without prejudice to ground No.1, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not holding that the other expenses amounting to Rs.1,92,20,831 is required to be allowed under the head business income, which were suo-moto disallowed

ISLAND STAR MALL DEVELOPES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 6(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

House Property". ITA Nos. 2246 to2251 & 2352 to 2357 /Mum/2023 M/s Island Star Mall Developers Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. 2. Without prejudice to ground No.1, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not holding that the other expenses amounting to Rs.1,92,20,831 is required to be allowed under the head business income, which were suo-moto disallowed

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 6(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S ISLAND STAR MALL DEVELOPERS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

House Property". ITA Nos. 2246 to2251 & 2352 to 2357 /Mum/2023 M/s Island Star Mall Developers Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. 2. Without prejudice to ground No.1, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not holding that the other expenses amounting to Rs.1,92,20,831 is required to be allowed under the head business income, which were suo-moto disallowed

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 6(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S ISLAND STAR MALL DEVELOPERS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

House Property". ITA Nos. 2246 to2251 & 2352 to 2357 /Mum/2023 M/s Island Star Mall Developers Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. 2. Without prejudice to ground No.1, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not holding that the other expenses amounting to Rs.1,92,20,831 is required to be allowed under the head business income, which were suo-moto disallowed

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 6(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S ISLAND STAR MALL DEVELOPERS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

House Property". ITA Nos. 2246 to2251 & 2352 to 2357 /Mum/2023 M/s Island Star Mall Developers Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. 2. Without prejudice to ground No.1, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not holding that the other expenses amounting to Rs.1,92,20,831 is required to be allowed under the head business income, which were suo-moto disallowed

ISLAND STAR MALL DEVELOPES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI SUBURBAN vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 6(3)(1), MUMBAI

house property” may kindly be adjudicated.\n9. Without prejudice to ground No. 1, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not holding that Bad Debt\nexpenses of Rs. 4,42,48,993/- is required to be allowed under the head “Income from\nHouse Property” unrealized rent. The appellant prays that the disallowance

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

house property for all these seven years, disallowance of exemption under section 10 (38) of The Income Tax Act , 1961 [ The Act] for assessment

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

house property for all these seven years, disallowance of exemption under section 10 (38) of The Income Tax Act , 1961 [ The Act] for assessment

MOHAN THANKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

house property for all these seven years, disallowance of exemption under section 10 (38) of The Income Tax Act , 1961 [ The Act] for assessment

MOHAN GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRLE - 5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

house property for all these seven years, disallowance of exemption under section 10 (38) of The Income Tax Act , 1961 [ The Act] for assessment

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

house property for all these seven years, disallowance of exemption under section 10 (38) of The Income Tax Act , 1961 [ The Act] for assessment

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

house property for all these seven years, disallowance of exemption under section 10 (38) of The Income Tax Act , 1961 [ The Act] for assessment

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

house property for all these seven years, disallowance of exemption under section 10 (38) of The Income Tax Act , 1961 [ The Act] for assessment