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

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

11\nITA No. 3395, 3396, 3397, 3398/Mum/2024\nΑ.Υ. 2012-13, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18\nArihant Developers, Mumbai\nrental income generated in the course of the business has to be taxed as\nbusiness income and not as income from house property, it is submitted\nthat the apprehension of the Ld. AO is factually incorrect. It is submitted\nthat

SIR RATAN TATA TRUST,MUMBAI SUBURBAN vs. ADDITIONAL /JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NFAC, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in both AY 2014-15 and AY

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

House, 24, National Faceless Assessment Homi Mody Street, Fort, Centre-2(1), Vs. Mumbai-400001 MTNL Tele Building, PAN : AAATS1013P Cumballa Hills, Peddar Road, Mumbai-400026. Appellant) : Respondent) Appellant/Assessee by : Shri P. J. Pardiwala a/w Shri Sukhsagar Syal, AR Revenue/Respondent by : Shri Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 22.07.2024 Date of Pronouncement 26.08.2024 : Per Padmavathy S, AM: 1. These

SIR RATAN TATA TRUST,MUMBAI SUBURBAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in both AY 2014-15 and AY

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

House, 24, National Faceless Assessment Homi Mody Street, Fort, Centre-2(1), Vs. Mumbai-400001 MTNL Tele Building, PAN : AAATS1013P Cumballa Hills, Peddar Road, Mumbai-400026. Appellant) : Respondent) Appellant/Assessee by : Shri P. J. Pardiwala a/w Shri Sukhsagar Syal, AR Revenue/Respondent by : Shri Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 22.07.2024 Date of Pronouncement 26.08.2024 : Per Padmavathy S, AM: 1. These

NANDLAL TOLANI CHARITABLE TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), WARD-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed is dismissed in the above terms

11(a) and therefore income has to be computed under Section 14 under different heads of income from House Property after giving statutory deduction under Section 24(a) at 30%. 3. The Learned CIT(A) erred in overlooking that there is no provisions in the Income-tax Act to charge tax in the case of Trust and in the case

THE GEM & JEWELLERY EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (E) RG 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for 10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Gem & Jewellery Export Acit (Exemptions) Range- Promotion Council, 2(1), Vs. Tower-A, Aw-1010, G Block, 5Th Floor, Room No. 519, Bharat Diamond Bourse, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, B.K.C., Bandra East, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaatt 3202 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Gem & Jewellery Export Dcit (Exemptions) Range- Promotion Council, 2(1), Tower-A, Aw-1010, G Block, Vs. 5Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Bharat Diamond Bourse, Lalbaug, B.K.C., Bandra East, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaatt 3202 H Appellant Respondent

Section 2(15). indicated by proviso (ii) to Section 2(15). 174. The insertion of Section 13(8)144 , the seventeenth 74. The insertion of Section 13(8)144 , the seventeenth 74. The insertion of Section 13(8)144 , the seventeenth proviso to Section 10(23C) and third proviso to Section proviso to Section 10(23C) and third proviso

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

4 properties were added to the total income of the assessee computed at ₹ 227,625/– and total income was computed at ₹ 2,17,99,055/–. Thus, the total income was increased only by income from property. 09. For assessment year 2012 – 13 income from house property with respect to the same four properties owned by the assessee as well

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

4 properties were added to the total income of the assessee computed at ₹ 227,625/– and total income was computed at ₹ 2,17,99,055/–. Thus, the total income was increased only by income from property. 09. For assessment year 2012 – 13 income from house property with respect to the same four properties owned by the assessee as well

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

4 properties were added to the total income of the assessee computed at ₹ 227,625/– and total income was computed at ₹ 2,17,99,055/–. Thus, the total income was increased only by income from property. 09. For assessment year 2012 – 13 income from house property with respect to the same four properties owned by the assessee as well

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

4 properties were added to the total income of the assessee computed at ₹ 227,625/– and total income was computed at ₹ 2,17,99,055/–. Thus, the total income was increased only by income from property. 09. For assessment year 2012 – 13 income from house property with respect to the same four properties owned by the assessee as well

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

4 properties were added to the total income of the assessee computed at ₹ 227,625/– and total income was computed at ₹ 2,17,99,055/–. Thus, the total income was increased only by income from property. 09. For assessment year 2012 – 13 income from house property with respect to the same four properties owned by the assessee as well

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

4 properties were added to the total income of the assessee computed at ₹ 227,625/– and total income was computed at ₹ 2,17,99,055/–. Thus, the total income was increased only by income from property. 09. For assessment year 2012 – 13 income from house property with respect to the same four properties owned by the assessee as well

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

4 properties were added to the total income of the assessee computed at ₹ 227,625/– and total income was computed at ₹ 2,17,99,055/–. Thus, the total income was increased only by income from property. 09. For assessment year 2012 – 13 income from house property with respect to the same four properties owned by the assessee as well

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

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

11 to 16–17 where no income is shown in the return of income, but properties are owned by the assessee. As no proper explanation was forthcoming, learned AO noted that assessee has flat number 13 and 14 at Model House, Assessee did not disclose any income as income from House Property, therefore, the learned AO estimated the income

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

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

11 to 16–17 where no income is shown in the return of income, but properties are owned by the assessee. As no proper explanation was forthcoming, learned AO noted that assessee has flat number 13 and 14 at Model House, Assessee did not disclose any income as income from House Property, therefore, the learned AO estimated the income

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

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

11 to 16–17 where no income is shown in the return of income, but properties are owned by the assessee. As no proper explanation was forthcoming, learned AO noted that assessee has flat number 13 and 14 at Model House, Assessee did not disclose any income as income from House Property, therefore, the learned AO estimated the income

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

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

11 to 16–17 where no income is shown in the return of income, but properties are owned by the assessee. As no proper explanation was forthcoming, learned AO noted that assessee has flat number 13 and 14 at Model House, Assessee did not disclose any income as income from House Property, therefore, the learned AO estimated the income

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

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

11 to 16–17 where no income is shown in the return of income, but properties are owned by the assessee. As no proper explanation was forthcoming, learned AO noted that assessee has flat number 13 and 14 at Model House, Assessee did not disclose any income as income from House Property, therefore, the learned AO estimated the income

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

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

11 to 16–17 where no income is shown in the return of income, but properties are owned by the assessee. As no proper explanation was forthcoming, learned AO noted that assessee has flat number 13 and 14 at Model House, Assessee did not disclose any income as income from House Property, therefore, the learned AO estimated the income