DCIT CEN 5 3, MUMBAI vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

22,236/ indentified for investment function amounting to Rs.7,41,71,779/- indentified for investment function amounting to Rs.7,41,71,779/ indentified for investment function amounting to Rs.7,41,71,779/ + = ½ percent of the average of + = ½ percent of the average of the value of relevant investments the value of relevant investments ) should not be disallowed and amounting to Rs.11

DCIT CEN 5 3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

22,236/ indentified for investment function amounting to Rs.7,41,71,779/- indentified for investment function amounting to Rs.7,41,71,779/ indentified for investment function amounting to Rs.7,41,71,779/ + = ½ percent of the average of + = ½ percent of the average of the value of relevant investments the value of relevant investments ) should not be disallowed and amounting to Rs.11

DCIT CEN 5 3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

22,236/ indentified for investment function amounting to Rs.7,41,71,779/- indentified for investment function amounting to Rs.7,41,71,779/ indentified for investment function amounting to Rs.7,41,71,779/ + = ½ percent of the average of + = ½ percent of the average of the value of relevant investments the value of relevant investments ) should not be disallowed and amounting to Rs.11

DCIT CEN 5 3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

22,236/ indentified for investment function amounting to Rs.7,41,71,779/- indentified for investment function amounting to Rs.7,41,71,779/ indentified for investment function amounting to Rs.7,41,71,779/ + = ½ percent of the average of + = ½ percent of the average of the value of relevant investments the value of relevant investments ) should not be disallowed and amounting to Rs.11

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

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

22 of the Act makes 'annual\nvalue' of such a property as income chargeable to tax under this head. How\nannual value is to be determined is provided in Section 23 of the Act. ‘Owner\nof the house property' is defined in Section 27 of the Act which includes\ncertain situations where a person not actually the owner shall

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

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

22 of the Act makes 'annual\nvalue' of such a property as income chargeable to tax under this head. How\nannual value is to be determined is provided in Section 23 of the Act. ‘Owner\nof the house property' is defined in Section 27 of the Act which includes\ncertain situations where a person not actually the owner shall

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

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

22 of the Act makes 'annual\nvalue' of such a property as income chargeable to tax under this head. How\nannual value is to be determined is provided in Section 23 of the Act. ‘Owner\nof the house property' is defined in Section 27 of the Act which includes\ncertain situations where a person not actually the owner shall

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

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

22 of the Act makes 'annual\nvalue' of such a property as income chargeable to tax under this head. How\nannual value is to be determined is provided in Section 23 of the Act. ‘Owner\nof the house property' is defined in Section 27 of the Act which includes\ncertain situations where a person not actually the owner shall

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. He submits that whether the property is acquired from known sources or not is not relevant for taxation u/s 22 of the Act. Had those properties found unaccounted those additions would have been under other sections. b) With respect to addition in case of long-term capital gain exemption u/s 10

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. He submits that whether the property is acquired from known sources or not is not relevant for taxation u/s 22 of the Act. Had those properties found unaccounted those additions would have been under other sections. b) With respect to addition in case of long-term capital gain exemption u/s 10

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. He submits that whether the property is acquired from known sources or not is not relevant for taxation u/s 22 of the Act. Had those properties found unaccounted those additions would have been under other sections. b) With respect to addition in case of long-term capital gain exemption u/s 10

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. He submits that whether the property is acquired from known sources or not is not relevant for taxation u/s 22 of the Act. Had those properties found unaccounted those additions would have been under other sections. b) With respect to addition in case of long-term capital gain exemption u/s 10

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. He submits that whether the property is acquired from known sources or not is not relevant for taxation u/s 22 of the Act. Had those properties found unaccounted those additions would have been under other sections. b) With respect to addition in case of long-term capital gain exemption u/s 10

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. He submits that whether the property is acquired from known sources or not is not relevant for taxation u/s 22 of the Act. Had those properties found unaccounted those additions would have been under other sections. b) With respect to addition in case of long-term capital gain exemption u/s 10

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. He submits that whether the property is acquired from known sources or not is not relevant for taxation u/s 22 of the Act. Had those properties found unaccounted those additions would have been under other sections. b) With respect to addition in case of long-term capital gain exemption u/s 10

ASST CIT 27(2), NAVI MUMBAI vs. MERIT MAGNUM CONSTRUCTION, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

property which otherwise satisfied condition of section 80IB(10), as referable to residential unit having a maximum built-up area as prescribed per clause (c) would qualify for deduction on proportionate basis thereunder to exclusion of other residential units. ITO vs. Satyananarayana Ramswaroop Agarwal [2014] 50 taxmann.com 11 (Pune Trib.) Section 80-IB of the Income-tax act, 1961-Deduction

ADITYA BIRLA PRIVATE EQUITY TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI (INCOME TAX OFFICER 20(1)(1), MUMBAI), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

22, 2020.\nThe Appellant therefore prays the impugned order is bad in law and\nhence be quashed.\nWITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE GROUND\nGROUND NO. II: REOPENING IS BAD IN LAW:\n2.1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in\nlaw, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of Ld. AO in\nreopening the reassessment

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

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

10–11 to 16–17 The claim of the assessee is that there was no liability to any notional income under section 22 under the head income from house property

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

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

10–11 to 16–17 The claim of the assessee is that there was no liability to any notional income under section 22 under the head income from house property