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 ()

10(38) of the Act on the income from sale of long term the income from sale of long term securities where Securities Transaction Tax (STT) has been paid. securities where Securities Transaction Tax (STT) has been paid. securities where Securities Transaction Tax (STT) has been paid. 9.1 The income of the assessee is taxed under the provisions

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 ()

10(38) of the Act on the income from sale of long term the income from sale of long term securities where Securities Transaction Tax (STT) has been paid. securities where Securities Transaction Tax (STT) has been paid. securities where Securities Transaction Tax (STT) has been paid. 9.1 The income of the assessee is taxed under the provisions

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 (38

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 (38

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 (38

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 (38

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 (38

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 (38

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 (38

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

Housing Development Finance Corporation\nLid It has been constituted to pool together resources, both\ninstitutional and other investors, for making investment in high\ngrowth sectors including real estate sector in India. The objects of\nthe Trust are contained in clause 6, a copy of which is placed in the\nPaper Book.\nThough we are not reproducing the contents

DCIT-1(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S SBI LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the Revenue's appeal for the

house property\", \"Capital Gains\" or \"Income from\nother sources\", or in section 199 or in sections 28 to 43B?\"\n6. \"Whether the nature or character of income accrued to and claimed exempt\nby assessee u/s 10(38

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. SBI LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the Revenue's appeal for the

house property\", \"Capital Gains\" or \"Income from\nother sources\", or in section 199 or in sections 28 to 43B?\"\n6. \"Whether the nature or character of income accrued to and claimed exempt\nby assessee u/s 10(38

DCIT-1(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. SBI LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the Revenue's appeal for the

house property", "Capital Gains" or "Income from\nother sources", or in section 199 or in sections 28 to 43B?\"\n6. \"Whether the nature or character of income accrued to and claimed exempt\nby assessee u/s 10(38

DY. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. SBI LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the Revenue's appeal for the

house property\", \"Capital Gains\" or \"Income from\nother sources\", or in section 199 or in sections 28 to 43B?\"\n6. \"Whether the nature or character of income accrued to and claimed exempt\nby assessee u/s 10(38

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DCIT vs. SBI LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,, MUMBAI

In the result, the Revenue's appeal for the

house property\", \"Capital Gains\" or \"Income from\nother sources\", or in section 199 or in sections 28 to 43B?\"\n6. \"Whether the nature or character of income accrued to and claimed exempt\nby assessee u/s 10(38

DCIT-1(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. SBI LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the Revenue's appeal for the

house property\", \"Capital Gains\" or \"Income from\nother sources\", or in section 199 or in sections 28 to 43B?\"\n6. \"Whether the nature or character of income accrued to and claimed exempt\nby assessee u/s 10(38

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

properties named in column No.3 27. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Mahaan Foods Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2009) 27 OTR 1052010) 123 TTD 590 (Del) held that although the contents of the relevant seized documents show that the amounts mentioned therein relate to some expenditure, in the absence of any other evidence found during

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

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

house properties. ii. bogus unsecured loan of ₹ 40 lakhs added under section 68 of the income tax act iii. denial of exemption under section 10 (38