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. He submits that whether the property is acquired from known sources or not is not relevant for taxation u/s 22 of the Act. Had those properties found unaccounted those additions would have been under other sections. b) With respect to addition in case of long-term capital gain exemption u/s 10 (38) of the Act, he submits that

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. He submits that whether the property is acquired from known sources or not is not relevant for taxation u/s 22 of the Act. Had those properties found unaccounted those additions would have been under other sections. b) With respect to addition in case of long-term capital gain exemption u/s 10 (38) of the Act, he submits that

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. He submits that whether the property is acquired from known sources or not is not relevant for taxation u/s 22 of the Act. Had those properties found unaccounted those additions would have been under other sections. b) With respect to addition in case of long-term capital gain exemption u/s 10 (38) of the Act, he submits that

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. He submits that whether the property is acquired from known sources or not is not relevant for taxation u/s 22 of the Act. Had those properties found unaccounted those additions would have been under other sections. b) With respect to addition in case of long-term capital gain exemption u/s 10 (38) of the Act, he submits that

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. He submits that whether the property is acquired from known sources or not is not relevant for taxation u/s 22 of the Act. Had those properties found unaccounted those additions would have been under other sections. b) With respect to addition in case of long-term capital gain exemption u/s 10 (38) of the Act, he submits that

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

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

153 A is upheld. Accordingly, ground numbers 1 of the appeal for all these three assessment years are dismissed. 056. Ground number 2 of the appeal for all those years are with respect to the addition made on account of the annual value of house property not disclosed by the assessee earlier but found on the basis of the balance

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

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

153 A is upheld. Accordingly, ground numbers 1 of the appeal for all these three assessment years are dismissed. 056. Ground number 2 of the appeal for all those years are with respect to the addition made on account of the annual value of house property not disclosed by the assessee earlier but found on the basis of the balance

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

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

153 A is upheld. Accordingly, ground numbers 1 of the appeal for all these three assessment years are dismissed. 056. Ground number 2 of the appeal for all those years are with respect to the addition made on account of the annual value of house property not disclosed by the assessee earlier but found on the basis of the balance

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

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

153 A is upheld. Accordingly, ground numbers 1 of the appeal for all these three assessment years are dismissed. 056. Ground number 2 of the appeal for all those years are with respect to the addition made on account of the annual value of house property not disclosed by the assessee earlier but found on the basis of the balance

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

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

153 A is upheld. Accordingly, ground numbers 1 of the appeal for all these three assessment years are dismissed. 056. Ground number 2 of the appeal for all those years are with respect to the addition made on account of the annual value of house property not disclosed by the assessee earlier but found on the basis of the balance

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

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

153 A is upheld. Accordingly, ground numbers 1 of the appeal for all these three assessment years are dismissed. 056. Ground number 2 of the appeal for all those years are with respect to the addition made on account of the annual value of house property not disclosed by the assessee earlier but found on the basis of the balance

FAROOQ ABDULLA MERCHANT,MUMBAI vs. ITO 23 (1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, Ground No. V raised by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Blefarooq Abdulla Merchant V. Income Tax Officer- Ward – 23(1)(4) Matru Mandir, Tardev Road A-1401, Poseidon Tower Mumbai – 400 007 Versova, Yari Road Above Indian Bank, Versova Andheri (W), Mumbai - 400061 Pan: Ahupm7426K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vimal Punamiya Department Represented By : Smt. Vranda U. Matkarni

153- 2011-12 - Whether word 'residential 161 house' as occurring in section 54 can include more than one or plural residential house - Held, yes The Judgment of High Court "Section 54 of the Income-tax Act, of Karnataka, in case of 1961 - Capital gains - Profit on sale Arun K. Thiagarajan V. of property

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI vs. SHERIAR PHIROJSHA IRANI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Sandeep Singh Karhail

house property", to bring into operation, the proviso to Section 54F. The rejection of the claim for exemption would arise if only the property stands in the name of the assessee, namely, individual or HUF. Given the fact that the assessee had not owned the property in her name only to the exclusion of anybody else including the husband

SHWETA SINGH,MUMBAI vs. ITO-WARD 33(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

house property", to bring into operation, the proviso to Section 54F. The rejection of the claim for exemption would arise if only the property stands in the name of the assessee, namely, individual or HUF. Given the fact that the assessee had not owned the property in her name only to the exclusion of anybody else including the husband

SHRI AMIT MANGILAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, - 33(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the above appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

House, 1st Floor, Kandivali East, Mumbai- Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400101, Maharashtra 400021, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AABPJ0925G Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Appellant by : Shri Naresh Jain & Shri Mahaveer Jain, ARs Respondent by : Shri Ram Krishn Kedia, (Sr. DR) Date of Hearing 13.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement 28.07.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER PRABHASH SHANKAR

PROCTER & GAMBLE HOME PRODUCTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, ground No. 3 of the

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Arun Khodpia(Physical Hearing) Procter & Gamble Home Products Ltd. Addl Cit Rg 8(2) P & G Plaza Cardinal Gracias Rd. Mumbai-400020. Chakala, Andheri (E)- 40009 Vs [Pan:Aaacp4072C] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Procter & Gamble Home Products Addl Cit 8(2) Private Limited, Vs Mumbai-400020. P & G Plaza Cardinal Gracias Rd. Chakala, Andheri (E)- 40009 [Pan:Aaacp4072C] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 92C(3) of the Act are satisfied; b. Rejecting Vatika Marketing Limited from the set of comparables; Procter & Gamble Home Products Private Limited (AY 2007-08 & 2008-09)) ITA No(s)4191/Mum/2014 & 2876/Mum/2015 c. Retaining Green Care Holdings Limited as a comparable company; d. Not allowing the working capital and risk adjustments. iii. The Appellant prays that the aforesaid

PROCTER & GAMBLE HOME PRODUCTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, ground No. 3 of the

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Arun Khodpia(Physical Hearing) Procter & Gamble Home Products Ltd. Addl Cit Rg 8(2) P & G Plaza Cardinal Gracias Rd. Mumbai-400020. Chakala, Andheri (E)- 40009 Vs [Pan:Aaacp4072C] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Procter & Gamble Home Products Addl Cit 8(2) Private Limited, Vs Mumbai-400020. P & G Plaza Cardinal Gracias Rd. Chakala, Andheri (E)- 40009 [Pan:Aaacp4072C] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 92C(3) of the Act are satisfied; b. Rejecting Vatika Marketing Limited from the set of comparables; Procter & Gamble Home Products Private Limited (AY 2007-08 & 2008-09)) ITA No(s)4191/Mum/2014 & 2876/Mum/2015 c. Retaining Green Care Holdings Limited as a comparable company; d. Not allowing the working capital and risk adjustments. iii. The Appellant prays that the aforesaid

DY CIT-1(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly assessee is allowed partly whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

house property”. 6.2 As far as the issue of claim of the TDS is concerned As far as the issue of claim of the TDS is concerned As far as the issue of claim of the TDS is concerned, The assessee has taken credit of TDS of Rs. assessee has taken credit