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 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 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

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 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

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. ()

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

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

SHREE BAL PROPERTIES & FINANCE P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT 2, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodm/S Shree Bal Properties & Finance P. Ltd Pr. Commissioner Of Income-Tax -2, 4, Buona Case, Sir P.M Road, Room No. 344, 3Rd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan Vs. Opp. Kashmir Arts Emporium, M.K Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Fort, Mumbai - 400 001. Pan –Aaccs1776N M/S Shree Bal Properties & Finance P. Ltd Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax 2(3)(2), 4, Buona Case, Sir P.M Road, Room No. 552, Aaykar Bhavan Vs. Opp. Kashmir Arts Emporium, M.K Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Fort, Mumbai - 400 001. Pan – Aaccs1776N Appellant By: S/Shri Mihir Naniwadekar & Kalpesh Turalkar, A.Rs Respondent By: S/Shri Salil Mishra, Cit D.R & V.Vinod Kumar, D.R Date Of Hearing: 04.03.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.06.2020

section 48, be deemed to be the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of such transfer. Admittedly, in the present case the stamp duty qua the transfer of the property in question was paid on a Shree Bal Properties and Finance P. Ltd. Vs ACIT- 2(3)(2), Mumbai

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-1(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ALL INDIA GEM AND JEWELLERY DOMESTIC COUNCIL, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2015-16

House, Road), Charni Road (East), Mumbai-400026. Mumbai-400 004. PAN NO. AAFCA 3001 P Appellant Respondent : Mr. Firoz Andhyarujina Assessee by Revenue by : Mr. Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR : 01/10/2025 Date of Hearing Date of pronouncement : 24/12/2025 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the Revenue is directed against order dated 29.05.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 25(3), MUMBAI vs. PANKAJ ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for AY 2012

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Pankaj Enterprises, Jt. Cit Range-25(3), C/O Shankarlal Jain & Assoicates Pritashkar Bhavan, Bkc, 12, Engineer Building, 265, Vs. Bandra (E), Princess Street, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax- M/S Pankaj Enterprises, 25(3), Plot No. 1, Behind Ice Factory, Room No. 601, C-10, 6Th Floor, Vs. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bandra Mumbai-400072. Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Co No. 313/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4875/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Co No. 312/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4876/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2012-13

house property” and “income from other sources”. The assessee filed return of income for the year . The assessee filed return of income for the year . The assessee filed return of income for the year under consideration on 28/07/2012 declaring total income under consideration on 28/07/2012 declaring total income under consideration on 28/07/2012 declaring total income at ₹8,21,584/- which

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 25(3), MUMBAI vs. PANKAJ ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for AY 2012

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Pankaj Enterprises, Jt. Cit Range-25(3), C/O Shankarlal Jain & Assoicates Pritashkar Bhavan, Bkc, 12, Engineer Building, 265, Vs. Bandra (E), Princess Street, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax- M/S Pankaj Enterprises, 25(3), Plot No. 1, Behind Ice Factory, Room No. 601, C-10, 6Th Floor, Vs. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bandra Mumbai-400072. Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Co No. 313/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4875/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Co No. 312/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4876/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2012-13

house property” and “income from other sources”. The assessee filed return of income for the year . The assessee filed return of income for the year . The assessee filed return of income for the year under consideration on 28/07/2012 declaring total income under consideration on 28/07/2012 declaring total income under consideration on 28/07/2012 declaring total income at ₹8,21,584/- which

PANKAJ ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. JT CIT RG 25(3), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for AY 2012

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Pankaj Enterprises, Jt. Cit Range-25(3), C/O Shankarlal Jain & Assoicates Pritashkar Bhavan, Bkc, 12, Engineer Building, 265, Vs. Bandra (E), Princess Street, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax- M/S Pankaj Enterprises, 25(3), Plot No. 1, Behind Ice Factory, Room No. 601, C-10, 6Th Floor, Vs. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bandra Mumbai-400072. Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Co No. 313/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4875/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Co No. 312/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4876/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2012-13

house property” and “income from other sources”. The assessee filed return of income for the year . The assessee filed return of income for the year . The assessee filed return of income for the year under consideration on 28/07/2012 declaring total income under consideration on 28/07/2012 declaring total income under consideration on 28/07/2012 declaring total income at ₹8,21,584/- which