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

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

17. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We have also\nperused the record. At the outset, we may observe that the premise on\nwhich the Tribunal has proceeded to hold that the income derived by\nthe assessee from leasing / renting out house properties, is by applying\nthe decision of the Supreme Court in East India Housing (supra),\nthe

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

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

17. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We have also\nperused the record. At the outset, we may observe that the premise on\nwhich the Tribunal has proceeded to hold that the income derived by\nthe assessee from leasing / renting out house properties, is by applying\nthe decision of the Supreme Court in East India Housing (supra),\nthe

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)

17 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. 33. We also found that the Assessing Officer in the reasons recorded has held that while completing the assessment for A.Y. 2009-10 in the assessee's own case, it came to light that assessee has shown the rental income separately in the computation under the head „Income from House Property‟ by which

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)

17 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. 33. We also found that the Assessing Officer in the reasons recorded has held that while completing the assessment for A.Y. 2009-10 in the assessee's own case, it came to light that assessee has shown the rental income separately in the computation under the head „Income from House Property‟ by which

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)

17 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. 33. We also found that the Assessing Officer in the reasons recorded has held that while completing the assessment for A.Y. 2009-10 in the assessee's own case, it came to light that assessee has shown the rental income separately in the computation under the head „Income from House Property‟ by which

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)

17 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. 33. We also found that the Assessing Officer in the reasons recorded has held that while completing the assessment for A.Y. 2009-10 in the assessee's own case, it came to light that assessee has shown the rental income separately in the computation under the head „Income from House Property‟ by which

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)

17 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. 33. We also found that the Assessing Officer in the reasons recorded has held that while completing the assessment for A.Y. 2009-10 in the assessee's own case, it came to light that assessee has shown the rental income separately in the computation under the head „Income from House Property‟ by which

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)

17 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. 33. We also found that the Assessing Officer in the reasons recorded has held that while completing the assessment for A.Y. 2009-10 in the assessee's own case, it came to light that assessee has shown the rental income separately in the computation under the head „Income from House Property‟ by which

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)

17 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. 33. We also found that the Assessing Officer in the reasons recorded has held that while completing the assessment for A.Y. 2009-10 in the assessee's own case, it came to light that assessee has shown the rental income separately in the computation under the head „Income from House Property‟ by which

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)

17 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. 33. We also found that the Assessing Officer in the reasons recorded has held that while completing the assessment for A.Y. 2009-10 in the assessee's own case, it came to light that assessee has shown the rental income separately in the computation under the head „Income from House Property‟ by which

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)

17 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. 33. We also found that the Assessing Officer in the reasons recorded has held that while completing the assessment for A.Y. 2009-10 in the assessee's own case, it came to light that assessee has shown the rental income separately in the computation under the head „Income from House Property‟ by which

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 was taxed at ₹ 73,722/– based on the property tax bill and (5) the flat number 16 was taxed at ₹ 247,934/– on the basis of deemed rent of ₹ 3 lakhs offered by the assessee in assessment year 2016 – 17. b) The assessee claimed long-term capital gain on sale of the shares as exempt under section

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 was taxed at ₹ 73,722/– based on the property tax bill and (5) the flat number 16 was taxed at ₹ 247,934/– on the basis of deemed rent of ₹ 3 lakhs offered by the assessee in assessment year 2016 – 17. b) The assessee claimed long-term capital gain on sale of the shares as exempt under section

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 was taxed at ₹ 73,722/– based on the property tax bill and (5) the flat number 16 was taxed at ₹ 247,934/– on the basis of deemed rent of ₹ 3 lakhs offered by the assessee in assessment year 2016 – 17. b) The assessee claimed long-term capital gain on sale of the shares as exempt under section

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 was taxed at ₹ 73,722/– based on the property tax bill and (5) the flat number 16 was taxed at ₹ 247,934/– on the basis of deemed rent of ₹ 3 lakhs offered by the assessee in assessment year 2016 – 17. b) The assessee claimed long-term capital gain on sale of the shares as exempt under section

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 was taxed at ₹ 73,722/– based on the property tax bill and (5) the flat number 16 was taxed at ₹ 247,934/– on the basis of deemed rent of ₹ 3 lakhs offered by the assessee in assessment year 2016 – 17. b) The assessee claimed long-term capital gain on sale of the shares as exempt under section

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 was taxed at ₹ 73,722/– based on the property tax bill and (5) the flat number 16 was taxed at ₹ 247,934/– on the basis of deemed rent of ₹ 3 lakhs offered by the assessee in assessment year 2016 – 17. b) The assessee claimed long-term capital gain on sale of the shares as exempt under section

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 was taxed at ₹ 73,722/– based on the property tax bill and (5) the flat number 16 was taxed at ₹ 247,934/– on the basis of deemed rent of ₹ 3 lakhs offered by the assessee in assessment year 2016 – 17. b) The assessee claimed long-term capital gain on sale of the shares as exempt under section