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 (in Rupees) property 10 (38) of the act on (in account of Rupees) allegedly bogus long- term capital gain (in Rupees) 2010 – 11 78,96,470 203,727 198,000 82,98,197 2011 – 12 87,34,940 215,107 89,50,047 2012 – 13 2,15,71,430 227,625 2,17,99,055 2013 – 14 2

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 (in Rupees) property 10 (38) of the act on (in account of Rupees) allegedly bogus long- term capital gain (in Rupees) 2010 – 11 78,96,470 203,727 198,000 82,98,197 2011 – 12 87,34,940 215,107 89,50,047 2012 – 13 2,15,71,430 227,625 2,17,99,055 2013 – 14 2

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 (in Rupees) property 10 (38) of the act on (in account of Rupees) allegedly bogus long- term capital gain (in Rupees) 2010 – 11 78,96,470 203,727 198,000 82,98,197 2011 – 12 87,34,940 215,107 89,50,047 2012 – 13 2,15,71,430 227,625 2,17,99,055 2013 – 14 2

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 (in Rupees) property 10 (38) of the act on (in account of Rupees) allegedly bogus long- term capital gain (in Rupees) 2010 – 11 78,96,470 203,727 198,000 82,98,197 2011 – 12 87,34,940 215,107 89,50,047 2012 – 13 2,15,71,430 227,625 2,17,99,055 2013 – 14 2

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 (in Rupees) property 10 (38) of the act on (in account of Rupees) allegedly bogus long- term capital gain (in Rupees) 2010 – 11 78,96,470 203,727 198,000 82,98,197 2011 – 12 87,34,940 215,107 89,50,047 2012 – 13 2,15,71,430 227,625 2,17,99,055 2013 – 14 2

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

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

2 :- addition of ₹ 227,625/– as Notional income from house property u/s 22[Para seven, page number 10-18 of CIT (A) order dated 12/3/2021] a) the learned CIT (A) order in law and on facts in confirming the action of the learned AO in making the addition of 427,625/– on account of notional income Under the head income

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

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

2 :- addition of ₹ 227,625/– as Notional income from house property u/s 22[Para seven, page number 10-18 of CIT (A) order dated 12/3/2021] a) the learned CIT (A) order in law and on facts in confirming the action of the learned AO in making the addition of 427,625/– on account of notional income Under the head income

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

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

2 :- addition of ₹ 227,625/– as Notional income from house property u/s 22[Para seven, page number 10-18 of CIT (A) order dated 12/3/2021] a) the learned CIT (A) order in law and on facts in confirming the action of the learned AO in making the addition of 427,625/– on account of notional income Under the head income

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

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

2 :- addition of ₹ 227,625/– as Notional income from house property u/s 22[Para seven, page number 10-18 of CIT (A) order dated 12/3/2021] a) the learned CIT (A) order in law and on facts in confirming the action of the learned AO in making the addition of 427,625/– on account of notional income Under the head income

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

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

2 :- addition of ₹ 227,625/– as Notional income from house property u/s 22[Para seven, page number 10-18 of CIT (A) order dated 12/3/2021] a) the learned CIT (A) order in law and on facts in confirming the action of the learned AO in making the addition of 427,625/– on account of notional income Under the head income

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

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

2 :- addition of ₹ 227,625/– as Notional income from house property u/s 22[Para seven, page number 10-18 of CIT (A) order dated 12/3/2021] a) the learned CIT (A) order in law and on facts in confirming the action of the learned AO in making the addition of 427,625/– on account of notional income Under the head income

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), has clearly held that the amendment to provision of section 54F is effective from April 1,2015, 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. Since tile issue is squarely covered

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

2 raised by the assessee are interrelated\nand interconnected and it relates to challenging the order of\nLd.CIT(A) in upholding the denial of claim of the assessee\nu/s 54 of the Act and for upholding the decision of Ld.AO of\ndisallowing the commission expenses and cost of\nimprovement. Therefore, we have decided to adjudicate these\ngrounds through the present

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

DY CIT CC-1(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

house the integral part of the business activity. In such circumstances, the Commissioner relied upon the above judgments and allowed the appeal. He concluded that the loss of Rs. 5.50 crores are a business loss in the hands of the assessee. He set aside the order of the Assessing Officer. 8. The Revenue carried the matter in appeal

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

house the integral part of the business activity. In such circumstances, the Commissioner relied upon the above judgments and allowed the appeal. He concluded that the loss of Rs. 5.50 crores are a business loss in the hands of the assessee. He set aside the order of the Assessing Officer. 8. The Revenue carried the matter in appeal

SAMIR NARAIN BHOJWANI ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Housing Infrastructure Development Corpn. (supra). 17. In the case of Beacon Projects (P.) Ltd. (supra), the Kerala High Court held at paragraphs 11 and 12 that: "From the principles laid down in the decisions referred to above, it is obvious that section 2(28A) is not attracted to every payment made and that the provision can be attracted only

SUVINO TELEVIDEO,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 25(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in the above terms

house property and income from stock and capital gains as\nclaimed by the appellant?\n\n14. The ld. AO while denying the claim of the assessee was of the opinion\nthat the unabsorbed depreciation pertaining to A.Y. 1995-96 to 1999-\n2000 was not allowable to be carried forward after the amendment of\nSection 32(2) w.e.f. 01.04.2002 which