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\n27(iiib) of the Act. On the other hand, under certain circumstances, where the\nincome may have been derived from letting out of the premises, it can still be\ntreated as business income if letting out of the premises itself is the business\nof the assessee.\"\nIn the present case, renting of warehouses is the main business

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\n27(iiib) of the Act. On the other hand, under certain circumstances, where the\nincome may have been derived from letting out of the premises, it can still be\ntreated as business income if letting out of the premises itself is the business\nof the assessee.\"\nIn the present case, renting of warehouses is the main business

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 made an incorrect claim of exemption u/s 10 (38 ) of the Act. g) He submits that it is of no consequences if the same are referred to in assessment order or not. The only issue to be tested is whether there is any incriminating material or not found during search for making addition. It is there

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 made an incorrect claim of exemption u/s 10 (38 ) of the Act. g) He submits that it is of no consequences if the same are referred to in assessment order or not. The only issue to be tested is whether there is any incriminating material or not found during search for making addition. It is there

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 made an incorrect claim of exemption u/s 10 (38 ) of the Act. g) He submits that it is of no consequences if the same are referred to in assessment order or not. The only issue to be tested is whether there is any incriminating material or not found during search for making addition. It is there

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 made an incorrect claim of exemption u/s 10 (38 ) of the Act. g) He submits that it is of no consequences if the same are referred to in assessment order or not. The only issue to be tested is whether there is any incriminating material or not found during search for making addition. It is there

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 and made an incorrect claim of exemption u/s 10 (38 ) of the Act. g) He submits that it is of no consequences if the same are referred to in assessment order or not. The only issue to be tested is whether there is any incriminating material or not found during search for making addition. It is there

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 made an incorrect claim of exemption u/s 10 (38 ) of the Act. g) He submits that it is of no consequences if the same are referred to in assessment order or not. The only issue to be tested is whether there is any incriminating material or not found during search for making addition. It is there

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 made an incorrect claim of exemption u/s 10 (38 ) of the Act. g) He submits that it is of no consequences if the same are referred to in assessment order or not. The only issue to be tested is whether there is any incriminating material or not found during search for making addition. It is there

DIRECTI INTERNET SOLUTIONS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 5(1)(2), MUMBAI

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

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

149 (SC) has affirmed the decision of the has affirmed the decision of the Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Directi ITA Nos. 3019 & 3018/M/2023 Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. (supra). 8.3 We have perused the memorandum of association

DIRECTI INTERNET SOLUTIONS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 5(1)(3), MUMBAI

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

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

149 (SC) has affirmed the decision of the has affirmed the decision of the Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Directi ITA Nos. 3019 & 3018/M/2023 Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. (supra). 8.3 We have perused the memorandum of association

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

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

house property with respect to 2 flats owned by the assessee in Mumbai, the AO repeatedly questioned the assessee about the income required to be offered, which is not replied by the assessee and therefore no infirmity can be found in the order of the learned AO. Further, he submitted that the learned CIT – A has categorically referred

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

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

house property with respect to 2 flats owned by the assessee in Mumbai, the AO repeatedly questioned the assessee about the income required to be offered, which is not replied by the assessee and therefore no infirmity can be found in the order of the learned AO. Further, he submitted that the learned CIT – A has categorically referred

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

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

house property with respect to 2 flats owned by the assessee in Mumbai, the AO repeatedly questioned the assessee about the income required to be offered, which is not replied by the assessee and therefore no infirmity can be found in the order of the learned AO. Further, he submitted that the learned CIT – A has categorically referred

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

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

house property with respect to 2 flats owned by the assessee in Mumbai, the AO repeatedly questioned the assessee about the income required to be offered, which is not replied by the assessee and therefore no infirmity can be found in the order of the learned AO. Further, he submitted that the learned CIT – A has categorically referred

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

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

house property with respect to 2 flats owned by the assessee in Mumbai, the AO repeatedly questioned the assessee about the income required to be offered, which is not replied by the assessee and therefore no infirmity can be found in the order of the learned AO. Further, he submitted that the learned CIT – A has categorically referred

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

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

house property with respect to 2 flats owned by the assessee in Mumbai, the AO repeatedly questioned the assessee about the income required to be offered, which is not replied by the assessee and therefore no infirmity can be found in the order of the learned AO. Further, he submitted that the learned CIT – A has categorically referred

DCIT-1(2)1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PATIL CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue s filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon’Ble & Ms. Padmavathy S., Hon’Ble

Property and Land Developers P Ltd, Vs. ACIT, [2018] 93 taxmann.com 296 P Ltd, Vs. ACIT, [2018] 93 taxmann.com 296 (Bom) (Bom) 4. Pr. CIT Vs. Montecarlo Construction Ltd, [2024] 161 Pr. CIT Vs. Montecarlo Construction Ltd, [2024] 161 Pr. CIT Vs. Montecarlo Construction Ltd, [2024] 161 taxmann.com 222 (Guj) taxmann.com 222 (Guj) 7. We have heard the counsels