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

section 127 of the act. It is the claim of the assessee that such order was passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to assessee and further copy of the order was also not given to the assessee despite several request made. 021. The learned assessing officer made addition in respect of annual value of properties as income from house

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

section 127 of the act. It is the claim of the assessee that such order was passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to assessee and further copy of the order was also not given to the assessee despite several request made. 021. The learned assessing officer made addition in respect of annual value of properties as income from house

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

section 127 of the act. It is the claim of the assessee that such order was passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to assessee and further copy of the order was also not given to the assessee despite several request made. 021. The learned assessing officer made addition in respect of annual value of properties as income from house

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

section 127 of the act. It is the claim of the assessee that such order was passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to assessee and further copy of the order was also not given to the assessee despite several request made. 021. The learned assessing officer made addition in respect of annual value of properties as income from house

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

section 127 of the act. It is the claim of the assessee that such order was passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to assessee and further copy of the order was also not given to the assessee despite several request made. 021. The learned assessing officer made addition in respect of annual value of properties as income from house

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

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

house property made in the order were in respect of the items and issues that were settled in the original assessment and therefore were not the subject matter of the special assessment u/s 153A c) your appellant prays that the addition of ₹ 227,625/– be deleted from the total income of the assessee as assessed by the learned

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

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

house property made in the order were in respect of the items and issues that were settled in the original assessment and therefore were not the subject matter of the special assessment u/s 153A c) your appellant prays that the addition of ₹ 227,625/– be deleted from the total income of the assessee as assessed by the learned

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

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

house property made in the order were in respect of the items and issues that were settled in the original assessment and therefore were not the subject matter of the special assessment u/s 153A c) your appellant prays that the addition of ₹ 227,625/– be deleted from the total income of the assessee as assessed by the learned

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

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

house property made in the order were in respect of the items and issues that were settled in the original assessment and therefore were not the subject matter of the special assessment u/s 153A c) your appellant prays that the addition of ₹ 227,625/– be deleted from the total income of the assessee as assessed by the learned

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

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

house property made in the order were in respect of the items and issues that were settled in the original assessment and therefore were not the subject matter of the special assessment u/s 153A c) your appellant prays that the addition of ₹ 227,625/– be deleted from the total income of the assessee as assessed by the learned

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

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

house property made in the order were in respect of the items and issues that were settled in the original assessment and therefore were not the subject matter of the special assessment u/s 153A c) your appellant prays that the addition of ₹ 227,625/– be deleted from the total income of the assessee as assessed by the learned

FAROOQ ABDULLA MERCHANT,MUMBAI vs. ITO 23 (1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, Ground No. V raised by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Blefarooq Abdulla Merchant V. Income Tax Officer- Ward – 23(1)(4) Matru Mandir, Tardev Road A-1401, Poseidon Tower Mumbai – 400 007 Versova, Yari Road Above Indian Bank, Versova Andheri (W), Mumbai - 400061 Pan: Ahupm7426K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vimal Punamiya Department Represented By : Smt. Vranda U. Matkarni

127 (Mad), it was clearly held that the amendment to provision of section 54F is effective from 14-2015, which makes it clear that benefit of section 54F will be applicable to one residential house in India. Prior to the amendment, it was clear that a residential house would include multiple residential units. Thus, assessee was entitled to claim deduction

MANOJ TEKRIWAL,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 24(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

127 (Madras), observed as under: Manoj Tekriwal ITA No.4147/Mum./2015 ―10. The above-said amendment to Section 54F of the Income Tax Act, which will come into effect only from 01.04.2015, makes it very clear that the benefit of Section 54F of the Income Tax Act will be applicable to constructed, one residential house in India and that clarifies

TARUN KUMAR RATAN SINGH RATHI,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 32(1), MUMBAI

127, situated at village\nKumbheri, Taluka: Mulshi, District: Pune through an agreement of\nsale dated 31st July 2017 from Mr. Manish Udhavdas\nRupchandani and Mr. Vicky Udhavdas Rupchandani.\n2. The appellant paid a sum of Rs. 3,41,37,000/- to the said Mr.\nManish Udhavdas Rupchandani and Mr.\nVicky Udhavdas\nRupchandani in flowing matter.\nDate\nof Payment mode\nAmount

DCIT-14(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. EKTA EVERGLADE HOMES PVT LTD.,, MUMBAI

Section 127\ncannot be compared or likened to a quasi judicial order that has adverse consequences. One can\nunderstand if additions are made on sketchy or bare minimum reasons, they cannot be upheld.\nHowever, what is proposed by an order under Section 127 is the transfer of one or several\nassessments from one circle to another, to that extent inconvenience

ABDUL RAHIM SULEMAN GHASWALA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 41(4)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Abdul Rahim Suleman Ghaswala, Dcit-41(4)(1), 142/148, Ghaswala Estate, Sv Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Road, Jogeshwari (West)-400102 Vs. Kurla Complex, Bandra (East)-400051. Pan No. Aalpg 9087 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. S.M. Makhija Revenue By : Mr. A.S. Sant, Sr. Dr : Date Of Hearing 27/12/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 01/01/2024

property would still continue to be owned by the rest of the co owned by the rest of the co-owners. Joint ownership is Joint ownership is therefore different from absolute ownership different from absolute ownership and in the case of residential unit n the case of residential unit which is jointly owned which is jointly owned none

MANJU RAKESH JAIN,MUMBAI vs. PCIT, MUMBAI-20, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Manju Rakesh Jain, Pcit, Mumbai-20 704-A, Highland Park, Lokhanwala 418, 4Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Complex, Andheri West, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400058. Mumbai-400012. Pan No. Aaepj 9613 N Appellant Respondent

house property income if the same is allowable under the relevant provisions of the if the same is allowable under the relevant provisions of the if the same is allowable under the relevant provisions of the Act. In this case Act. In this case, interest income has been received from , interest income has been received from Sanyam Sanyam Sanyam Realtors

ADDL CIT R G 7(1), MUMBAI vs. NOVARTIS INDIA LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS HINDUSTAN CIBA GIEGY LTD. ), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Novartis India Limited V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income –Tax - 7(2)(2) {Earlier Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} 6Th& 7Th Floor 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Inspire Bkc M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 “G” Block, Bkc Main Road Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400051 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1) V. M/S. Novartis India Limited Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.190/Mum/2011 [Arising Out Of Ita No.6772/Mum/2010 (A.Y. 2002-03)] M/S. Novartis India Limited V. Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 143(2) proceeding and was treated as such by the assessee preclude it from urging lack of jurisdiction." (emphasis supplied) (3) There is no interplay of section 127 as held in para 8, in the following words- "8. As far as the section 127 goes, we are of the opinion that having regard to the findings rendered, that question