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

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

NIRMALA NAWAL PHATARPHEKAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE 19(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes in above terms

143(1) of the Act. In the said\nreturn, the assessee has claimed LTCG on sale of garage i.e. Rs.20 lakhs\nand long term capital loss on sale of residential house property situated\nat B/3505, Oberoi Exquisite, Mumbai of Rs.82,95,964/-. The assessee\nhas set off a part of the long term capital loss against LTCG of Rs.20\nlakhs

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

143(3) \nr.w.s. \n144B \nDCIT, Range \n1(1), Mumbai \n30.03.2009 271(1)(c) \n2019-20 \n2020-21 \n2020-21 \n2002-03 \nRevenue \nAssessee \nRevenue \nAssessee \n[Appeals \nagainst \nPenalty \nOrder \npassed \nu/s. \n271(1)(c)] \nDCIT, Range \n1(1), Mumbai \n30.03.2009 271(1)(c) \n2003-04 \nDCIT, Cir-1(1), \nMumbai \n08.10.2010 271(1)(c) \n2005-06 \nDCIT

SUMAN GUPTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - CC- 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2015

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Ita Nos. 3860 & 3859/Mum/2018 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Smt. Suman Gupta, Dy. Cit Cc-4(2), 6Th New Harileela House, Air India Building, 19Th Mint Road, Fort, Vs. Floor, Room No. 1918, Mumbai-400 001. Nariman Point, Mumbai-21. Pan No. Ahqpg 0220 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Bhupendra Karkhanis & Mr. Aakash Marthak & Mr. Vijay Bhatt, Ars Revenue By : Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 02/03/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 27/04/2023 Order

143(3) r.w.s.153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without appreciating the fact that no Act, 1961 without appreciating the fact that no Act, 1961 without appreciating the fact that no incriminating material was found during the course of incriminating material was found during the course of incriminating material was found during the course of search proceedings in respect

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

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

143(3) of the Act dated 29.12.2016 did not allow the deduction claimed by the assessee under section 80IB(10) for Rs.86,30,612/- for the reason that –  The deduction was not claimed in the original return of income filed under section 139(1) and, therefore, not allowable as per provision of section 80AC;  Certain units are having the built

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. ()

143(3) of the Act dated 29.12.2016 did not allow the deduction claimed by the assessee under section 80IB(10) for Rs.86,30,612/- for the reason that –  The deduction was not claimed in the original return of income filed under section 139(1) and, therefore, not allowable as per provision of section 80AC;  Certain units are having the built

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. ()

143(3) of the Act dated 29.12.2016 did not allow the deduction claimed by the assessee under section 80IB(10) for Rs.86,30,612/- for the reason that –  The deduction was not claimed in the original return of income filed under section 139(1) and, therefore, not allowable as per provision of section 80AC;  Certain units are having the built

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. ()

143(3) of the Act dated 29.12.2016 did not allow the deduction claimed by the assessee under section 80IB(10) for Rs.86,30,612/- for the reason that –  The deduction was not claimed in the original return of income filed under section 139(1) and, therefore, not allowable as per provision of section 80AC;  Certain units are having the built

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. ()

143(3) of the Act dated 29.12.2016 did not allow the deduction claimed by the assessee under section 80IB(10) for Rs.86,30,612/- for the reason that –  The deduction was not claimed in the original return of income filed under section 139(1) and, therefore, not allowable as per provision of section 80AC;  Certain units are having the built

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

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

Section 9 of the Income Tax Act.”\n23. We may observe that the decision in East India Housing (supra)\nwas considered by the Supreme Court in the decision in Chennai\nProperties & Investments Ltd. (supra) wherein the appellant\nassessee was a company incorporated under the Companies Act with\nmain objective, as contained in the Memorandum of Association, to\nacquire the properties

PUNIT DEORA TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD, 25(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purposes

House Property income is being taxed in individual hands\nof each beneficiary at maximum marginal rate.\n4.1 In respect of intimation order u/s 143(1),it is contented that the\nadjustment made is beyond permissible adjustments u/s 143(1)(a).\n3rdproviso to sec 143(1) permitting adjustments based on TDS stood\nwithdrawn from AY 2018-19. Adjustment made being without

ACIT CENT. CIR -5(4) , MUMBAI vs. SHRI NITAN CHHATWAL , MUMBAI

In the result, the both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

143(3) of the Act. Hence the revenue is well aware of purchase and sale of shares by the assessee and hence it is not new information and the said “state of affairs” is well known to the revenue. Hence the extended meaning of “incriminating material” given by Ld CIT(A) does not suit to the facts of the present

THE ACIT CENT. CIR -5(4) , MUMBAI vs. SHRI NITAN CHHATWAL, MUMBAI

In the result, the both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

143(3) of the Act. Hence the revenue is well aware of purchase and sale of shares by the assessee and hence it is not new information and the said “state of affairs” is well known to the revenue. Hence the extended meaning of “incriminating material” given by Ld CIT(A) does not suit to the facts of the present

SHILPA PRABHAKAR KULKARNI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly for stati...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Shilpa Prabhakar Kulkarni, Dcit Centralized Processing 3 Neel Sagar, 1280 Prabhadevi Centre, Seaface Prabhadevi, Vs. Bengaluru-560 500. Mumbai-400025. Pan No. Brhpk 8129 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Chandni Shah & Kinjal Patel Revenue By : Mr. A.N. Bhalekar, Dr Date Of Hearing : 03/05/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 11/05/2023 Order

1+2+3+4+5) 9993508 7. Allowances exempt under section 10 (Not to be included Allowances exempt under section 10 (Not to be included in 6 above) in 6 above) i. Travel concession/assistance received (sec. 72784 10(5) ii. Tax Paid by employer on non-monetary 0 perquisite (sec. 10(10CC) iii. Allowance to meet expenditure incurred