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, capital gain and other sources. Assessee has filed his return of income under section 139 (1) for all these years. Subsequently search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act was carried out on 4/2/2016 in-group case. Assessee is one of the person covered in those searches. During the course of search assessee’s statement were

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, capital gain and other sources. Assessee has filed his return of income under section 139 (1) for all these years. Subsequently search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act was carried out on 4/2/2016 in-group case. Assessee is one of the person covered in those searches. During the course of search assessee’s statement were

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, capital gain and other sources. Assessee has filed his return of income under section 139 (1) for all these years. Subsequently search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act was carried out on 4/2/2016 in-group case. Assessee is one of the person covered in those searches. During the course of search assessee’s statement were

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, capital gain and other sources. Assessee has filed his return of income under section 139 (1) for all these years. Subsequently search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act was carried out on 4/2/2016 in-group case. Assessee is one of the person covered in those searches. During the course of search assessee’s statement were

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, capital gain and other sources. Assessee has filed his return of income under section 139 (1) for all these years. Subsequently search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act was carried out on 4/2/2016 in-group case. Assessee is one of the person covered in those searches. During the course of search assessee’s statement were

DHARMISTA MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 34(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyaldr. Dharmista Mehta 22/5, Walchand Terraces, Opp. A.C. Market, Tardeo, Mumbai - 400043. Pan: Aafpm5272R ...... Appellant Vs. Ito-34(1) (3), Income Tax Office Building, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Satish Mody Respondent By : Smt. Mahita Nair, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 18/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/10/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-46, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As [‘Cit(A)’] Dated 31.01.2017 Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As [‘The Act’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

house or otherwise. All these facts have to be considered with reference to provisions of Section 54F (4) along with Section 139 (1) of the Act, as the due time would be under Section 139(1) only not under Section 139(4) of the Act.” 15. Tribunal, as a matter of fact, has accorded one more opportunity to the appellant

RANI JAGDISH SAHDEVAN,MUMBAI vs. ITO 25 (3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid findings

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Gagan Goyal

house property, must be deposited by the assessee before the due date of filing of return of income under section 139(1) i.e. 31.07.2013 in the present case. Accordingly, assessee was asked to show cause as to why the claim Rani Jagdish Sahdevan ITA No. 162/Mum./2020 of exemption of capital gains under section

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

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. 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

DR. PRABHA ATRE FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX EXEMPTION WARD 1(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21

property held under trust or other legal obligation wholly for charitable or religious purposes or in part only for such purposes, or of income being voluntary contributions referred to in subclause (iia) of clause (24) of section 2, shall, if the total income in respect of which he is assessable as a representative assessee (the total income for this purpose

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

5,90,06,341/-. 11 Farooq Abdulla Merchant 17. In the result, Assessing Officer has partly allowed the commission expenditure to the extent of assessee’s share, rejected the payment made to assessee’s brothers to the extent of ₹.3 crores, allowed the exemption u/s. 54 of the Act only to the extent of one house and rejected the addition

DY.CIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(2) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. MINDSPACE BUSINESS PARKS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

house property as offered in the return of income filed under section 139(1) and 139(5) of the Act. It is relevant

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -4(3) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. MINDSPACE BUSINESS PARKS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

house property as offered in the return of income filed under section 139(1) and 139(5) of the Act. It is relevant

KENNETH M. MISQUITTA ,MUMBAI vs. ITO, 25(2)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

property”, other than the new asset, the amount of capital gain arising from the transfer of the original asset not charged under section 45 on the basis of the cost of such new asset as provided in clause (a), or, as the case may be, clause (b), of sub-section (1), shall be deemed to be income chargeable under