SUMAN GUPTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - CC- 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2015

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Ita Nos. 3860 & 3859/Mum/2018 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Smt. Suman Gupta, Dy. Cit Cc-4(2), 6Th New Harileela House, Air India Building, 19Th Mint Road, Fort, Vs. Floor, Room No. 1918, Mumbai-400 001. Nariman Point, Mumbai-21. Pan No. Ahqpg 0220 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Bhupendra Karkhanis & Mr. Aakash Marthak & Mr. Vijay Bhatt, Ars Revenue By : Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 02/03/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 27/04/2023 Order

houses had been let. Smt. Suman Gupta ITA Nos. 3860 & 3859/M/2018 (5) Where the property consisting of any building or land (5) Where the property consisting of any building or land (5) Where the property consisting of any building or land appurtenant thereto is held as st appurtenant thereto is held as stock-in-trade and the trade

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

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

17,99,055/–. Thus, the total income was increased only by income from property. 09. For assessment year 2012 – 13 income from house property with respect to the same four properties owned by the assessee as well as one more property at big splash was computed and added to the total income of the assessee. Income from HOUSE property with

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

17,99,055/–. Thus, the total income was increased only by income from property. 09. For assessment year 2012 – 13 income from house property with respect to the same four properties owned by the assessee as well as one more property at big splash was computed and added to the total income of the assessee. Income from HOUSE property with

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

17,99,055/–. Thus, the total income was increased only by income from property. 09. For assessment year 2012 – 13 income from house property with respect to the same four properties owned by the assessee as well as one more property at big splash was computed and added to the total income of the assessee. Income from HOUSE property with

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

17,99,055/–. Thus, the total income was increased only by income from property. 09. For assessment year 2012 – 13 income from house property with respect to the same four properties owned by the assessee as well as one more property at big splash was computed and added to the total income of the assessee. Income from HOUSE property with

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

17,99,055/–. Thus, the total income was increased only by income from property. 09. For assessment year 2012 – 13 income from house property with respect to the same four properties owned by the assessee as well as one more property at big splash was computed and added to the total income of the assessee. Income from HOUSE property with

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

17,99,055/–. Thus, the total income was increased only by income from property. 09. For assessment year 2012 – 13 income from house property with respect to the same four properties owned by the assessee as well as one more property at big splash was computed and added to the total income of the assessee. Income from HOUSE property with

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

17,99,055/–. Thus, the total income was increased only by income from property. 09. For assessment year 2012 – 13 income from house property with respect to the same four properties owned by the assessee as well as one more property at big splash was computed and added to the total income of the assessee. Income from HOUSE property with

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

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

SIR RATAN TATA TRUST,MUMBAI SUBURBAN vs. ADDITIONAL /JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NFAC, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in both AY 2014-15 and AY

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

House, 24, National Faceless Assessment Homi Mody Street, Fort, Centre-2(1), Vs. Mumbai-400001 MTNL Tele Building, PAN : AAATS1013P Cumballa Hills, Peddar Road, Mumbai-400026. Appellant) : Respondent) Appellant/Assessee by : Shri P. J. Pardiwala a/w Shri Sukhsagar Syal, AR Revenue/Respondent by : Shri Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 22.07.2024 Date of Pronouncement 26.08.2024 : Per Padmavathy S, AM: 1. These

SIR RATAN TATA TRUST,MUMBAI SUBURBAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in both AY 2014-15 and AY

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

House, 24, National Faceless Assessment Homi Mody Street, Fort, Centre-2(1), Vs. Mumbai-400001 MTNL Tele Building, PAN : AAATS1013P Cumballa Hills, Peddar Road, Mumbai-400026. Appellant) : Respondent) Appellant/Assessee by : Shri P. J. Pardiwala a/w Shri Sukhsagar Syal, AR Revenue/Respondent by : Shri Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 22.07.2024 Date of Pronouncement 26.08.2024 : Per Padmavathy S, AM: 1. These

MODERN ABODES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 12(3)(4) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blemodern Abodes Pvt. Ltd., V. Income Tax Officer – 12(3)(4) C/O. Gulabani & Co. Room No. 148, Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 506, 5Th Floor Shree Prasad House 35Th Road, Off. Linking Road Bandra (W), Mumbai - 400050 Pan: Aagcm1595B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Ms. Neelam Jadhav Shri Ashish Kumar Deharia Department Represented By :

17 Modern Abodes Pvt. Ltd., property development and has returned income from such business. 8. The third condition is that the occupation of the property should be for the purpose of business or profession. Crucial words used in the provision linking occupation of property with are `for the purpose of business'. If the property is occupied for the purpose

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-2(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

House, C-5, G-Block, Bandra – Kurla Complex, Bandra (East) ……………. Respondent Mumbai – 400051 PAN: AAACB0472C Assessee by : Shri C. Naresh Revenue by : Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT (DR) ITA No.1451, 1452, 1547 & 1548/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2018-19) 2 Date of Hearing – 11/12/2025 Date of Order – 30/01/2026 O R D E R PER BENCH : The present cross-appeals have been

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

House, C-5, G-Block, Bandra – Kurla Complex, Bandra (East) ……………. Respondent Mumbai – 400051 PAN: AAACB0472C Assessee by : Shri C. Naresh Revenue by : Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT (DR) ITA No.1451, 1452, 1547 & 1548/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2018-19) 2 Date of Hearing – 11/12/2025 Date of Order – 30/01/2026 O R D E R PER BENCH : The present cross-appeals have been

CLASSIC MALL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 6(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17

house property remaining vacant for whole of the year, unlike provisions contained in erstwhile section 24(2)(ix). This intent is factored in the provisions contained in section 23(1)(c). 7. From the perusal of page 13 of the impugned assessment order, we note that ld. Assessing Officer observed that case of the assessee is covered under the provisions