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 and bogus long-term capital gain which are all based on the independent incriminating material found during the course of search relevant to those assessment years. Assessment year 2015 – 16 is not a concluded assessment year and therefore shall abate and assessing officer can make addition even in absence of incriminating material found during the course of search

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 and bogus long-term capital gain which are all based on the independent incriminating material found during the course of search relevant to those assessment years. Assessment year 2015 – 16 is not a concluded assessment year and therefore shall abate and assessing officer can make addition even in absence of incriminating material found during the course of search

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 and bogus long-term capital gain which are all based on the independent incriminating material found during the course of search relevant to those assessment years. Assessment year 2015 – 16 is not a concluded assessment year and therefore shall abate and assessing officer can make addition even in absence of incriminating material found during the course of search

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 and bogus long-term capital gain which are all based on the independent incriminating material found during the course of search relevant to those assessment years. Assessment year 2015 – 16 is not a concluded assessment year and therefore shall abate and assessing officer can make addition even in absence of incriminating material found during the course of search

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 and bogus long-term capital gain which are all based on the independent incriminating material found during the course of search relevant to those assessment years. Assessment year 2015 – 16 is not a concluded assessment year and therefore shall abate and assessing officer can make addition even in absence of incriminating material found during the course of search

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

131 ITA No.1451, 1452, 1547 & 1548/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2018-19) 8 following the judgment rendered in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT(supra). The relevant extract of the judgment reads as under: "19. The Supreme Court in this judgment upheld the decision of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana arising under section

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-2(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

131 ITA No.1451, 1452, 1547 & 1548/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2018-19) 8 following the judgment rendered in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT(supra). The relevant extract of the judgment reads as under: "19. The Supreme Court in this judgment upheld the decision of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana arising under section

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. THE NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, MUMBAI

131 following the judgment rendered in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT(supra). The relevant extract of the judgment reads as under:\n\"19. The Supreme Court in this judgment upheld the decision of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana arising under section 14A of the Act with respect to an assessee bank. It further held that

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

131\nfollowing the judgment rendered in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs.\nCIT(supra). The relevant extract of the judgment reads as under:\n\"19. The Supreme Court in this judgment upheld the decision of the High Court of\nPunjab and Haryana arising under section 14A of the Act with respect to an assessee\nbank. It further held that

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

property Entire expenditure incurred were placed before the Assessing Officer The house purchased was not habitable The Appellant had to incur necessary expenditure to make to house habitable It is a cost of improvement. (Copy enclosed in paper book page number 116-122)  All these expenses incurred were meant to make the house habitable which was this over and above

M/S.BALAJI BULLION & COMMODITIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-40, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Balaji Bullion & Commodities The Dy. Commissioner Of (India) Private Limited Income–Tax, 118/120, 3Rd Floor, Ashoka Central Circle–40, Vs. House Zavri Baazar, Mumbai Mumbai-400 002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcbo236F Balaji Universal Tradelinks P. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income–Tax, 118/120, 3Rd Floor, Ashoka Central Circle–40, Vs. House Zavri Baazar, Mumbai Mumbai-400 002

Housing Developing Company vs DCIT (ITA No.38/2014) order dated 25/07/2014 from Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, Pr. CIT vs Kurele Paper Mills Pvt. ltd. (ITA No.369 of 20015) order dated 06/07/2015, CIT vs Continental warehousing corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd. (2015) 58 taxman.com78(Bom.), All Cargo Global Logistic Ltd. vs DCIT (2012) 23 taxman.com 103(Bom.)(SB), held that no addition

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD ( CORPORATE FINANCE DIVISION),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 6(3), MUMBAI

Bench: the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal preferred by the Assessee vide order, dated 18/05/2009. 4. Not being satisfied with the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A), the Assessee has preferred appeal before this Tribunal. The Revenue has also filed cross-appeal challenging the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A).

house property excluding the portions occupied by the Assessee for the purpose of business or profession can be computed. However, the Revenue has failed to point out corresponding provision providing for Assessment Years: 2006-2007 computation of depreciation and WDV of Block of Assets excluding the WDV of the asset let out during the relevant previous year. 7.8. We note

ACIT 6(3), MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

house property\nexcluding the portions occupied by the Assessee for the purpose of\nbusiness or profession can be computed. However, the Revenue has\nfailed to point out corresponding provision providing for\ncomputation of depreciation and WDV of Block of Assets excluding\nthe WDV of the asset let out during the relevant previous year.\n7. 8. We note that Section

DY CIT-1(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly assessee is allowed partly whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

house property”. 6.2 As far as the issue of claim of the TDS is concerned As far as the issue of claim of the TDS is concerned As far as the issue of claim of the TDS is concerned, The assessee has taken credit of TDS of Rs. assessee has taken credit of TDS of Rs. Rs 1

M/S THE MAHARASHTRA STATE CO. OP BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO-1(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly assessee is allowed partly whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

house property”. 6.2 As far as the issue of claim of the TDS is concerned As far as the issue of claim of the TDS is concerned As far as the issue of claim of the TDS is concerned, The assessee has taken credit of TDS of Rs. assessee has taken credit of TDS of Rs. Rs 1

GATI KINTETSU EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 14(1)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, In the result, appeal for AY 2013-14 is allowed partly for 14 is allowed partly for statistical purposes, purposes, appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed, is partly allowed, appeal...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

House, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, CST Road, Kalina, Mumbai-400020. Santacruz (East), Mumbai-400098. PAN NO. AADCG 2096 A Appellant Respondent : Mr. Madhur Agrawal, Assessee by Mr. Fenil Bhatt & Mr. C.C. Dangi : Ms. R A Dhyani, CIT-DR Revenue by : 19/02/2024 Date of Hearing : 13/05/2024 Date of pronouncement ORDER PER BENCH These appeals by the assessee are directed against

GATI KINTETSU EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MAHARASHTRA AND MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 14(1)(2), MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA AND MUMBAI

In the result, In the result, appeal for AY 2013-14 is allowed partly for 14 is allowed partly for statistical purposes, purposes, appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed, is partly allowed, appeal...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

House, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, CST Road, Kalina, Mumbai-400020. Santacruz (East), Mumbai-400098. PAN NO. AADCG 2096 A Appellant Respondent : Mr. Madhur Agrawal, Assessee by Mr. Fenil Bhatt & Mr. C.C. Dangi : Ms. R A Dhyani, CIT-DR Revenue by : 19/02/2024 Date of Hearing : 13/05/2024 Date of pronouncement ORDER PER BENCH These appeals by the assessee are directed against

GATI KINTETSU EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MAHARASHTRA AND MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 14(1)(2), MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA AND MUMBAI

In the result, In the result, appeal for AY 2013-14 is allowed partly for 14 is allowed partly for statistical purposes, purposes, appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed, is partly allowed, appeal...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

House, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, CST Road, Kalina, Mumbai-400020. Santacruz (East), Mumbai-400098. PAN NO. AADCG 2096 A Appellant Respondent : Mr. Madhur Agrawal, Assessee by Mr. Fenil Bhatt & Mr. C.C. Dangi : Ms. R A Dhyani, CIT-DR Revenue by : 19/02/2024 Date of Hearing : 13/05/2024 Date of pronouncement ORDER PER BENCH These appeals by the assessee are directed against