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 and Income from business. We find there is no finding on these aspects on the submissions of the asssessee by the CIT(A). Therefore, we considering the principles of natural justice

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 and Income from business. We find there is no finding on these aspects on the submissions of the asssessee by the CIT(A). Therefore, we considering the principles of natural justice

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 and Income from business. We find there is no finding on these aspects on the submissions of the asssessee by the CIT(A). Therefore, we considering the principles of natural justice

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 and Income from business. We find there is no finding on these aspects on the submissions of the asssessee by the CIT(A). Therefore, we considering the principles of natural justice

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 and Income from business. We find there is no finding on these aspects on the submissions of the asssessee by the CIT(A). Therefore, we considering the principles of natural justice

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 there is a dispute with respect to annual value, deduction of municipal taxes, availability of vacancy allowance and standard deduction @ 30 % vi. Disallowance of exemption u/s 10 (38) of The Act is unjustified as assessee discharged his onus, violation of principles of natural justice

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 there is a dispute with respect to annual value, deduction of municipal taxes, availability of vacancy allowance and standard deduction @ 30 % vi. Disallowance of exemption u/s 10 (38) of The Act is unjustified as assessee discharged his onus, violation of principles of natural justice

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 there is a dispute with respect to annual value, deduction of municipal taxes, availability of vacancy allowance and standard deduction @ 30 % vi. Disallowance of exemption u/s 10 (38) of The Act is unjustified as assessee discharged his onus, violation of principles of natural justice

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 there is a dispute with respect to annual value, deduction of municipal taxes, availability of vacancy allowance and standard deduction @ 30 % vi. Disallowance of exemption u/s 10 (38) of The Act is unjustified as assessee discharged his onus, violation of principles of natural justice

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 there is a dispute with respect to annual value, deduction of municipal taxes, availability of vacancy allowance and standard deduction @ 30 % vi. Disallowance of exemption u/s 10 (38) of The Act is unjustified as assessee discharged his onus, violation of principles of natural justice

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 there is a dispute with respect to annual value, deduction of municipal taxes, availability of vacancy allowance and standard deduction @ 30 % vi. Disallowance of exemption u/s 10 (38) of The Act is unjustified as assessee discharged his onus, violation of principles of natural justice

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 there is a dispute with respect to annual value, deduction of municipal taxes, availability of vacancy allowance and standard deduction @ 30 % vi. Disallowance of exemption u/s 10 (38) of The Act is unjustified as assessee discharged his onus, violation of principles of natural justice

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

house property u/s 22 considering it as a deemed income in respect of three premises and further erred in confirming the action of the AO in estimating such income without any basis and not allowing deduction u/s 23 (1) (C) and Section 24 of the act and proceeded in gross violation of natural justice

PRIYA MOHAN GURNANAI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

house property u/s 22 considering it as a deemed income in respect of three premises and further erred in confirming the action of the AO in estimating such income without any basis and not allowing deduction u/s 23 (1) (C) and Section 24 of the act and proceeded in gross violation of natural justice

PRIYA MOHAN GURNANAI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

house property u/s 22 considering it as a deemed income in respect of three premises and further erred in confirming the action of the AO in estimating such income without any basis and not allowing deduction u/s 23 (1) (C) and Section 24 of the act and proceeded in gross violation of natural justice

PRIYA MOHAN GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. CY CIT-CC-5(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

house property u/s 22 considering it as a deemed income in respect of three premises and further erred in confirming the action of the AO in estimating such income without any basis and not allowing deduction u/s 23 (1) (C) and Section 24 of the act and proceeded in gross violation of natural justice

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

house property u/s 22 considering it as a deemed income in respect of three premises and further erred in confirming the action of the AO in estimating such income without any basis and not allowing deduction u/s 23 (1) (C) and Section 24 of the act and proceeded in gross violation of natural justice

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

house property u/s 22 considering it as a deemed income in respect of three premises and further erred in confirming the action of the AO in estimating such income without any basis and not allowing deduction u/s 23 (1) (C) and Section 24 of the act and proceeded in gross violation of natural justice