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

1) of the act on 19/1/2016. As the search took place on 4/2/2016, the assessment was completed by virtue of issue of intimation dated 19/1/2016. vii. He therefore submitted that relying upon the decision of coordinate bench in case of Arihant universal reality Ltd 141 taxmann.com 249 and Agrawal entertainment Ltd 72 taxmann.com 340, assessment year 2015 – 16 is also

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

1) of the act on 19/1/2016. As the search took place on 4/2/2016, the assessment was completed by virtue of issue of intimation dated 19/1/2016. vii. He therefore submitted that relying upon the decision of coordinate bench in case of Arihant universal reality Ltd 141 taxmann.com 249 and Agrawal entertainment Ltd 72 taxmann.com 340, assessment year 2015 – 16 is also

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

1) of the act on 19/1/2016. As the search took place on 4/2/2016, the assessment was completed by virtue of issue of intimation dated 19/1/2016. vii. He therefore submitted that relying upon the decision of coordinate bench in case of Arihant universal reality Ltd 141 taxmann.com 249 and Agrawal entertainment Ltd 72 taxmann.com 340, assessment year 2015 – 16 is also

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

1) of the act on 19/1/2016. As the search took place on 4/2/2016, the assessment was completed by virtue of issue of intimation dated 19/1/2016. vii. He therefore submitted that relying upon the decision of coordinate bench in case of Arihant universal reality Ltd 141 taxmann.com 249 and Agrawal entertainment Ltd 72 taxmann.com 340, assessment year 2015 – 16 is also

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

1) of the act on 19/1/2016. As the search took place on 4/2/2016, the assessment was completed by virtue of issue of intimation dated 19/1/2016. vii. He therefore submitted that relying upon the decision of coordinate bench in case of Arihant universal reality Ltd 141 taxmann.com 249 and Agrawal entertainment Ltd 72 taxmann.com 340, assessment year 2015 – 16 is also

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

1) of the act on 19/1/2016. As the search took place on 4/2/2016, the assessment was completed by virtue of issue of intimation dated 19/1/2016. vii. He therefore submitted that relying upon the decision of coordinate bench in case of Arihant universal reality Ltd 141 taxmann.com 249 and Agrawal entertainment Ltd 72 taxmann.com 340, assessment year 2015 – 16 is also

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

1) of the act on 19/1/2016. As the search took place on 4/2/2016, the assessment was completed by virtue of issue of intimation dated 19/1/2016. vii. He therefore submitted that relying upon the decision of coordinate bench in case of Arihant universal reality Ltd 141 taxmann.com 249 and Agrawal entertainment Ltd 72 taxmann.com 340, assessment year 2015 – 16 is also

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

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

149 (SC)] are applicable in this\ncase.\n4.10 The appellant has also relied on the decision in case of Mangla Homes\n(P) Ltd. Vs ITO (2010) 325 ITR 281(Bom) & New Delhi Hotels Ltd Vs\nACIT (2014) 360 ITR 0187 (Delhi). However, the facts of the case are\ndifferent from the case of the appellant. In case of Mangla

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

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

149 (SC)] are applicable in this\ncase.\n4.10 The appellant has also relied on the decision in case of Mangla Homes\n(P) Ltd. Vs ITO (2010) 325 ITR 281(Bom) & New Delhi Hotels Ltd Vs\nACIT (2014) 360 ITR 0187 (Delhi). However, the facts of the case are\ndifferent from the case of the appellant. In case of Mangla

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

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

149 (SC)] are applicable in this\ncase.\n4.10 The appellant has also relied on the decision in case of Mangla Homes\n(P) Ltd. Vs ITO (2010) 325 ITR 281(Bom) & New Delhi Hotels Ltd Vs\nACIT (2014) 360 ITR 0187 (Delhi). However, the facts of the case are\ndifferent from the case of the appellant. In case of Mangla

NILANJANA ARVINDER SINGH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2014-

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

House, Tamrind Lane, Fort, Mumbai, G.P.O. Mumbai - 400001 Maharashtra ……………. Appellant PAN – BGAPS2172J v/s DCIT, Circle – 16(3), ……………. Respondent Mumbai Assessee by : Shri Bharat Kumar Revenue by : Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR Date of Hearing – 12/03/2025 Date of Order – 13/03/2025 O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The assessee has filed the present appeals against the separate impugned order

AMINA ASLAM QURESHI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 22(1)(1) MUMBAI , MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

House Property and Interest Income. The assessment was reopened as there was difference between purchase consideration as per agreement & Stamp Duty value of the property. The assessee had purchased an immovable property at Rs. 1,55,00,000/-, whereas stamp duty value was at Rs 1,81,46,000/-. 2.1 Notice u/s. 148 dated 30/06/2021 was issued under pre- amended

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

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

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

M/S.BALAJI BULLION & COMMODITIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-40, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Balaji Bullion & Commodities The Dy. Commissioner Of (India) Private Limited Income–Tax, 118/120, 3Rd Floor, Ashoka Central Circle–40, Vs. House Zavri Baazar, Mumbai Mumbai-400 002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcbo236F Balaji Universal Tradelinks P. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income–Tax, 118/120, 3Rd Floor, Ashoka Central Circle–40, Vs. House Zavri Baazar, Mumbai Mumbai-400 002

149, section 151 and section 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A after the 31st day of May, 2003, the Assessing Officer shall— ITA Nos. 1291 & 1292/Mum/2018 M/s Balaji Universal Tradelinks P. Ltd. & Balaji Bullion & commodities

DCIT-CC-5(4), MUMBAI vs. RAGHULEELA ESTATES PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

house property income on account of maintenance charges without Raghuleela Estate Pvt. Ltd. appreciating the fact that common area maintenance charges were part of rent agreement. ix) On the fact and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case