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’. [CIT\nv Ansal Housing Finance & Leasing Co. Ltd (2016) 72 Taxman.com 254].\nThus, the AO is not justified in treating the rental receipts of Rs.\n2,82,16,861/- as business receipts and deny the Appellant standard\ndeduction amounting to Rs.83,74,762/- allowable under section 24(a) of\nthe Act.\n3.1\nBrief facts of the case are that

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’. [CIT\nv Ansal Housing Finance & Leasing Co. Ltd (2016) 72 Taxman.com 254].\nThus, the AO is not justified in treating the rental receipts of Rs.\n2,82,16,861/- as business receipts and deny the Appellant standard\ndeduction amounting to Rs.83,74,762/- allowable under section 24(a) of\nthe Act.\n3.1 Brief facts of the case are that

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 and made an incorrect claim of exemption u/s 10 (38 ) of the Act. g) He submits that it is of no consequences if the same are referred to in assessment order or not. The only issue to be tested is whether there is any incriminating material or not found during search for making addition. It is there

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 and made an incorrect claim of exemption u/s 10 (38 ) of the Act. g) He submits that it is of no consequences if the same are referred to in assessment order or not. The only issue to be tested is whether there is any incriminating material or not found during search for making addition. It is there

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 and made an incorrect claim of exemption u/s 10 (38 ) of the Act. g) He submits that it is of no consequences if the same are referred to in assessment order or not. The only issue to be tested is whether there is any incriminating material or not found during search for making addition. It is there

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 and made an incorrect claim of exemption u/s 10 (38 ) of the Act. g) He submits that it is of no consequences if the same are referred to in assessment order or not. The only issue to be tested is whether there is any incriminating material or not found during search for making addition. It is there

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 and made an incorrect claim of exemption u/s 10 (38 ) of the Act. g) He submits that it is of no consequences if the same are referred to in assessment order or not. The only issue to be tested is whether there is any incriminating material or not found during search for making addition. It is there

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 and made an incorrect claim of exemption u/s 10 (38 ) of the Act. g) He submits that it is of no consequences if the same are referred to in assessment order or not. The only issue to be tested is whether there is any incriminating material or not found during search for making addition. It is there

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 and made an incorrect claim of exemption u/s 10 (38 ) of the Act. g) He submits that it is of no consequences if the same are referred to in assessment order or not. The only issue to be tested is whether there is any incriminating material or not found during search for making addition. It is there

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

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

house property with respect to 2 flats owned by the assessee in Mumbai, the AO repeatedly questioned the assessee about the income required to be offered, which is not replied by the assessee and therefore no infirmity can be found in the order of the learned AO. Further, he submitted that the learned CIT – A has categorically referred

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

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

house property with respect to 2 flats owned by the assessee in Mumbai, the AO repeatedly questioned the assessee about the income required to be offered, which is not replied by the assessee and therefore no infirmity can be found in the order of the learned AO. Further, he submitted that the learned CIT – A has categorically referred

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

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

house property with respect to 2 flats owned by the assessee in Mumbai, the AO repeatedly questioned the assessee about the income required to be offered, which is not replied by the assessee and therefore no infirmity can be found in the order of the learned AO. Further, he submitted that the learned CIT – A has categorically referred

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

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

house property with respect to 2 flats owned by the assessee in Mumbai, the AO repeatedly questioned the assessee about the income required to be offered, which is not replied by the assessee and therefore no infirmity can be found in the order of the learned AO. Further, he submitted that the learned CIT – A has categorically referred

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

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

house property with respect to 2 flats owned by the assessee in Mumbai, the AO repeatedly questioned the assessee about the income required to be offered, which is not replied by the assessee and therefore no infirmity can be found in the order of the learned AO. Further, he submitted that the learned CIT – A has categorically referred

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

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

house property with respect to 2 flats owned by the assessee in Mumbai, the AO repeatedly questioned the assessee about the income required to be offered, which is not replied by the assessee and therefore no infirmity can be found in the order of the learned AO. Further, he submitted that the learned CIT – A has categorically referred

SURINCO WORKWEAR P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(3)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1290/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 बिाम/ M/S. Surinco Workwear Ito 8(3)(2) Private Ltd., R.No. 412, 36, Marol Industrial Aayakar Bhavan, V. Estate, Mumbai 400021 M. Vasanji Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 059 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacs5694K (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Ms. Heena Sheth Revenue By: Shri. O.P Meena (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 04.02.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01.05.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 1290/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 01.11.2016 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-18/It-126/Ito-8(3)(2)/14-15, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-18, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2009-10, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Penalty Order Dated 28.03.2014 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2009- 10. I.T.A. No.1290/Mum/2017

house property‟ despite the fact that the assessee was not owner of the said property and consequential deduction u/s. 24(1) were also claimed by the assessee because reassessment

MORAJ BUILDING CONCEPTS PVT LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRLE - 5(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

reassessment were contrary to the facts unearthed during the course of 153A proceedings. If there is nothing on record to suggest that any material was unearthed during the search or during the 153A proceedings, the Assessing Officer while passing order under section 153A read with section 143(3) cannot disturb the assessment order.” 8. Respectfully following the above said decision

MORAJ BUILDING CONCEPTS PVT.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIR -5(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

reassessment were contrary to the facts unearthed during the course of 153A proceedings. If there is nothing on record to suggest that any material was unearthed during the search or during the 153A proceedings, the Assessing Officer while passing order under section 153A read with section 143(3) cannot disturb the assessment order.” 8. Respectfully following the above said decision