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 143 (2) was issued on 24/1/2017. During the year a) Assessee was found to be owner of five properties for which no income was offered; therefore, the learned assessing officer estimated an income of ₹ 504,475/– as its income under the head income from property. (1) property is 39/103 at FAM cooperative housing

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

section 143 (2) was issued on 24/1/2017. During the year a) Assessee was found to be owner of five properties for which no income was offered; therefore, the learned assessing officer estimated an income of ₹ 504,475/– as its income under the head income from property. (1) property is 39/103 at FAM cooperative housing

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 143 (2) was issued on 24/1/2017. During the year a) Assessee was found to be owner of five properties for which no income was offered; therefore, the learned assessing officer estimated an income of ₹ 504,475/– as its income under the head income from property. (1) property is 39/103 at FAM cooperative housing

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 143 (2) was issued on 24/1/2017. During the year a) Assessee was found to be owner of five properties for which no income was offered; therefore, the learned assessing officer estimated an income of ₹ 504,475/– as its income under the head income from property. (1) property is 39/103 at FAM cooperative housing

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 143 (2) was issued on 24/1/2017. During the year a) Assessee was found to be owner of five properties for which no income was offered; therefore, the learned assessing officer estimated an income of ₹ 504,475/– as its income under the head income from property. (1) property is 39/103 at FAM cooperative housing

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 143 (2) was issued on 24/1/2017. During the year a) Assessee was found to be owner of five properties for which no income was offered; therefore, the learned assessing officer estimated an income of ₹ 504,475/– as its income under the head income from property. (1) property is 39/103 at FAM cooperative housing

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

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

property’. [CIT\nv Ansal Housing Finance & Leasing Co. Ltd (2016) 72 Taxman.com 254].\nThus, the AO is not justified in treating the rental receipts of Rs.\n2,82,16,861/- as business receipts and deny the Appellant standard\ndeduction amounting to Rs.83,74,762/- allowable under section 24(a) of\nthe Act.\n3.1 Brief facts of the case are that

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

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

property’. [CIT\nv Ansal Housing Finance & Leasing Co. Ltd (2016) 72 Taxman.com 254].\nThus, the AO is not justified in treating the rental receipts of Rs.\n2,82,16,861/- as business receipts and deny the Appellant standard\ndeduction amounting to Rs.83,74,762/- allowable under section 24(a) of\nthe Act.\n3.1\nBrief facts of the case are that

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

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

property’. [CIT\nv Ansal Housing Finance & Leasing Co. Ltd (2016) 72 Taxman.com 254].\nThus, the AO is not justified in treating the rental receipts of Rs.\n2,82,16,861/- as business receipts and deny the Appellant standard\ndeduction amounting to Rs.83,74,762/- allowable under section 24(a) of\nthe Act.\n3.1 Brief facts of the case are that

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

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

Section 23 of The Income Tax Act. 016. Accordingly, the total income of the assessee was assessed at ₹ 1,251,425/– against the returned income of ₹ 1,023,860/– making an addition of ₹ 227,625/- under the head income from house property by the assessment order passed u/s 143

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

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

Section 23 of The Income Tax Act. 016. Accordingly, the total income of the assessee was assessed at ₹ 1,251,425/– against the returned income of ₹ 1,023,860/– making an addition of ₹ 227,625/- under the head income from house property by the assessment order passed u/s 143

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

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

Section 23 of The Income Tax Act. 016. Accordingly, the total income of the assessee was assessed at ₹ 1,251,425/– against the returned income of ₹ 1,023,860/– making an addition of ₹ 227,625/- under the head income from house property by the assessment order passed u/s 143

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

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

Section 23 of The Income Tax Act. 016. Accordingly, the total income of the assessee was assessed at ₹ 1,251,425/– against the returned income of ₹ 1,023,860/– making an addition of ₹ 227,625/- under the head income from house property by the assessment order passed u/s 143

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

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

Section 23 of The Income Tax Act. 016. Accordingly, the total income of the assessee was assessed at ₹ 1,251,425/– against the returned income of ₹ 1,023,860/– making an addition of ₹ 227,625/- under the head income from house property by the assessment order passed u/s 143

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

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

Section 23 of The Income Tax Act. 016. Accordingly, the total income of the assessee was assessed at ₹ 1,251,425/– against the returned income of ₹ 1,023,860/– making an addition of ₹ 227,625/- under the head income from house property by the assessment order passed u/s 143

M/S. ATUL PROJECTS INDIA P LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2) (NOW JURIDICTION WITH DC CC 2(4)), MUMBAI

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

property in execution of a decree shall be applicable in its-entirety except such provision therein which may not be practicable to be applied. 16. The case of the revenue is that the expression 'so far as may be apply' indicates that it is not expected to follow the provisions of Section 142, sub-sections 2 and 3 of Section

M/S. ATUL PROJECTS INDIA PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2), ( NOW JURIDICTION WITH DC CC-2(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

property in execution of a decree shall be applicable in its-entirety except such provision therein which may not be practicable to be applied. 16. The case of the revenue is that the expression 'so far as may be apply' indicates that it is not expected to follow the provisions of Section 142, sub-sections 2 and 3 of Section

M/S. ATUL PROJECTS INDIA PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2), ( NOW JURIDICTION WITH DC CC-2(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

property in execution of a decree shall be applicable in its-entirety except such provision therein which may not be practicable to be applied. 16. The case of the revenue is that the expression 'so far as may be apply' indicates that it is not expected to follow the provisions of Section 142, sub-sections 2 and 3 of Section