THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

158 (SC) squarely applies to the facts of the present case. Where Their Lordships observed and held as follows:- "A glance at the provisions of section 271 (1 )(c) of the Income- tax Act. 1961, suggests that an order to be covered by it, there 4 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. has to be concealment of the particulars

THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

158 (SC) squarely applies to the facts of the present case. Where Their Lordships observed and held as follows:- "A glance at the provisions of section 271 (1 )(c) of the Income- tax Act. 1961, suggests that an order to be covered by it, there 4 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. has to be concealment of the particulars

THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

158 (SC) squarely applies to the facts of the present case. Where Their Lordships observed and held as follows:- "A glance at the provisions of section 271 (1 )(c) of the Income- tax Act. 1961, suggests that an order to be covered by it, there 4 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. has to be concealment of the particulars

THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

158 (SC) squarely applies to the facts of the present case. Where Their Lordships observed and held as follows:- "A glance at the provisions of section 271 (1 )(c) of the Income- tax Act. 1961, suggests that an order to be covered by it, there 4 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. has to be concealment of the particulars

ASST CIT CC 8(4), MUMBAI vs. PHOENIX MILLS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

158 (SC) squarely applies to the facts of the present case. Where Their Lordships observed and held as follows:- "A glance at the provisions of section 271 (1 )(c) of the Income- tax Act. 1961, suggests that an order to be covered by it, there 4 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. has to be concealment of the particulars

THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

158 (SC) squarely applies to the facts of the present case. Where Their Lordships observed and held as follows:- "A glance at the provisions of section 271 (1 )(c) of the Income- tax Act. 1961, suggests that an order to be covered by it, there 4 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. has to be concealment of the particulars

THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

158 (SC) squarely applies to the facts of the present case. Where Their Lordships observed and held as follows:- "A glance at the provisions of section 271 (1 )(c) of the Income- tax Act. 1961, suggests that an order to be covered by it, there 4 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. has to be concealment of the particulars

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

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

158, Sion , Mumbai -22 and also [2] flat number 14 at the same premises. Assessee was asked to show cause why annual value should not be taxed, ITA no.707,708, 714–717, & 719/Mum/2021 Pirya Mohan Gurnani. A.Ys. 10–11 to 16–17 where no income is shown in the return of income, but properties are owned by the assessee

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

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

158, Sion , Mumbai -22 and also [2] flat number 14 at the same premises. Assessee was asked to show cause why annual value should not be taxed, ITA no.707,708, 714–717, & 719/Mum/2021 Pirya Mohan Gurnani. A.Ys. 10–11 to 16–17 where no income is shown in the return of income, but properties are owned by the assessee

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

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

158, Sion , Mumbai -22 and also [2] flat number 14 at the same premises. Assessee was asked to show cause why annual value should not be taxed, ITA no.707,708, 714–717, & 719/Mum/2021 Pirya Mohan Gurnani. A.Ys. 10–11 to 16–17 where no income is shown in the return of income, but properties are owned by the assessee

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

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

158, Sion , Mumbai -22 and also [2] flat number 14 at the same premises. Assessee was asked to show cause why annual value should not be taxed, ITA no.707,708, 714–717, & 719/Mum/2021 Pirya Mohan Gurnani. A.Ys. 10–11 to 16–17 where no income is shown in the return of income, but properties are owned by the assessee

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

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

158, Sion , Mumbai -22 and also [2] flat number 14 at the same premises. Assessee was asked to show cause why annual value should not be taxed, ITA no.707,708, 714–717, & 719/Mum/2021 Pirya Mohan Gurnani. A.Ys. 10–11 to 16–17 where no income is shown in the return of income, but properties are owned by the assessee

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

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

158, Sion , Mumbai -22 and also [2] flat number 14 at the same premises. Assessee was asked to show cause why annual value should not be taxed, ITA no.707,708, 714–717, & 719/Mum/2021 Pirya Mohan Gurnani. A.Ys. 10–11 to 16–17 where no income is shown in the return of income, but properties are owned by the assessee

SUYASH HOLDING & ESTATE DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 8(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

158/- in the financial year 2008- 09 relevant to A.Y.2009-10. It is also pertinent that the rate of return on the let out property in the market is generally determined @ 4% per annum on the cost of the let out premises. Hence, the rate of return @ 4% on the let out property in the instant case which, on the indexed

SHARAN HOSPITALITY P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 9(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6717/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Sharan Hospitality Private Limited Dy. Cit – Circle 9(3) बनाम/ Ground Floor, Gys Infinity, Mumbai Paranjape ‘B’, Scheme, Subhas Road, Vs. Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-57 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aagcs 8608 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. Priyanka Jain ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K. Mahondas सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 26.5.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 12.9.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 18.9.2012, Dismissing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting Its Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2009- 10 Vide Order Dated 22.12.2011. 2. The Only Issue Arising In This Appeal Is The Correct Amount At Which The Annual Value In Respect Of The Assessee’S Swami Vivekanand (S.V.) Road, Mumbai Property

158 ITR 211 (Ker). The observations by the Hon’ble Patna High Court in Maharajadhiraj of Darbhanga vs. CIT AIR (1931) Pat. 223 to the effect that the provision is applicable only to those cases in which the house property is habitually let to tenants, and the vacancies referred to are vacancies falling between different tenancies, was considered

MORAJ BUILDING CONCEPTS PVT LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRLE - 5(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

section 143(3) cannot disturb the assessment order.” 8. Respectfully following the above said decision, we are inclined to set aside the orders passed for these two Assessment Years as there is no incriminating material found during the search. 9. In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for the A.Ys. 2012-13 and 2013-14 are allowed. ITA.No

MORAJ BUILDING CONCEPTS PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 5(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

section 143(3) cannot disturb the assessment order.” 8. Respectfully following the above said decision, we are inclined to set aside the orders passed for these two Assessment Years as there is no incriminating material found during the search. 9. In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for the A.Ys. 2012-13 and 2013-14 are allowed. ITA.No

MORAJ BUILDING CONCEPTS PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENT. CIR -5(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

section 143(3) cannot disturb the assessment order.” 8. Respectfully following the above said decision, we are inclined to set aside the orders passed for these two Assessment Years as there is no incriminating material found during the search. 9. In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for the A.Ys. 2012-13 and 2013-14 are allowed. ITA.No