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 153 A of the act. Therefore, claim of assessee about absence of incriminating material is false. d) He completely read the statement of assessee, Mr. Bhatt, Mr. Kalpesh, Mr. Piyush and also referred to several documents found from Mr. Bhatt, which clearly proves according to him that claim of long-term capital gain of the assessee, is false

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 153 A of the act. Therefore, claim of assessee about absence of incriminating material is false. d) He completely read the statement of assessee, Mr. Bhatt, Mr. Kalpesh, Mr. Piyush and also referred to several documents found from Mr. Bhatt, which clearly proves according to him that claim of long-term capital gain of the assessee, is false

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 153 A of the act. Therefore, claim of assessee about absence of incriminating material is false. d) He completely read the statement of assessee, Mr. Bhatt, Mr. Kalpesh, Mr. Piyush and also referred to several documents found from Mr. Bhatt, which clearly proves according to him that claim of long-term capital gain of the assessee, is false

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 153 A of the act. Therefore, claim of assessee about absence of incriminating material is false. d) He completely read the statement of assessee, Mr. Bhatt, Mr. Kalpesh, Mr. Piyush and also referred to several documents found from Mr. Bhatt, which clearly proves according to him that claim of long-term capital gain of the assessee, is false

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 153 A of the act. Therefore, claim of assessee about absence of incriminating material is false. d) He completely read the statement of assessee, Mr. Bhatt, Mr. Kalpesh, Mr. Piyush and also referred to several documents found from Mr. Bhatt, which clearly proves according to him that claim of long-term capital gain of the assessee, is false

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 of TDS of Rs. Rs 1

M/S THE MAHARASHTRA STATE CO. OP BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO-1(3)(3), 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 of TDS of Rs. Rs 1

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 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 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. 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

NAVBHARAT POTTERIES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CIRCLE 7(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in above\nterms

house property” in the preceding years, but after\nthe expiry of the license period of 36 months the licensee had vacated the property and\nconveyed its intention of not getting the license agreement renewed any further. We further\nfind from a perusal of the records before us that it is not the case of the department that\nafter the property

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

153, the assessment or reassessment relating to any assessment year which has abated under the second proviso to sub-section (1), shall stand revived with effect from the date of receipt of the order of such annulment by the 9[Principal Commissioner or Commissioner: Provided that such revival shall cease to have effect, if such order of annulment

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

1) can include more than one or plural residential house - Held, yes Whether where assessee HUF sold its residential house and invested capital gain in purchasing more than one residential houses within stipulated time limit, assessee would be entitled to benefit of exemption under section 54 - Held, yes" 21 Farooq Abdulla Merchant CASE LAW CITATION The Judgment of ITAT "Section

UNICORN INFOSERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEALS CENTRE, NEW DELHI

In the result, the regular ground raised by the

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry () Assessment Year: 2011-12

House Property. The appellant had accepted the addition Unicorn Infoservices Pvt. Ltd. Unicorn Infoservices Pvt. Ltd. 4 and did not file appeal against it. Not filing of appeal against the addition and did not file appeal against it. Not filing of appeal against the addition and did not file appeal against it. Not filing of appeal against the addition

ACIT - 14(2) (2), MUMBAI vs. PFIZER LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm M/S Pfizer Limited The Capital, 1802/1901, Acit-14(2)(2) Plot No.C-70, G-Block, 461, 4T H Floor, Aaykar Bhavan Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp3334M

property was considered at ₹ 323 million. Further fair valuation of identified intangibles of Wyeth Limited vested in Pfizer Ltd pursuant to the amalgamation of Wyeth Limited with Pfizer Ltd was prepared by Deloitte as per letter dated 9 March 2015 stated that the fair value of identified intangibles as arrived at INR 427 2 million and value attributable to goodwill