ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 25(3), MUMBAI vs. PANKAJ ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for AY 2012

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Pankaj Enterprises, Jt. Cit Range-25(3), C/O Shankarlal Jain & Assoicates Pritashkar Bhavan, Bkc, 12, Engineer Building, 265, Vs. Bandra (E), Princess Street, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax- M/S Pankaj Enterprises, 25(3), Plot No. 1, Behind Ice Factory, Room No. 601, C-10, 6Th Floor, Vs. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bandra Mumbai-400072. Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Co No. 313/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4875/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Co No. 312/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4876/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2012-13

house property” and “income from other sources”. The assessee filed return of income for the year . The assessee filed return of income for the year . The assessee filed return of income for the year under consideration on 28/07/2012 declaring total income under consideration on 28/07/2012 declaring total income under consideration on 28/07/2012 declaring total income at ₹8,21,584/- which

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 25(3), MUMBAI vs. PANKAJ ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for AY 2012

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Pankaj Enterprises, Jt. Cit Range-25(3), C/O Shankarlal Jain & Assoicates Pritashkar Bhavan, Bkc, 12, Engineer Building, 265, Vs. Bandra (E), Princess Street, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax- M/S Pankaj Enterprises, 25(3), Plot No. 1, Behind Ice Factory, Room No. 601, C-10, 6Th Floor, Vs. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bandra Mumbai-400072. Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Co No. 313/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4875/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Co No. 312/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4876/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2012-13

house property” and “income from other sources”. The assessee filed return of income for the year . The assessee filed return of income for the year . The assessee filed return of income for the year under consideration on 28/07/2012 declaring total income under consideration on 28/07/2012 declaring total income under consideration on 28/07/2012 declaring total income at ₹8,21,584/- which

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

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

2,82,16,861/- as business income and denied the\nstandard deduction under section 24(a) amounting to Rs.83,74,762/-\nwithout appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. Thus, gross\ntotal income determined at Rs.2,60,33,302/- as against returned income\nof Rs.1,69,14,565/- is not at all justified and the addition made may\ndeleted

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 under section (in Rupees) property 10 (38) of the act on (in account of Rupees) allegedly bogus long- term capital gain (in Rupees) 2010 – 11 78,96,470 203,727 198,000 82,98,197 2011 – 12 87,34,940 215,107 89,50,047 2012 – 13 2,15,71,430 227,625 2,17,99,055 2013 – 14

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 under section (in Rupees) property 10 (38) of the act on (in account of Rupees) allegedly bogus long- term capital gain (in Rupees) 2010 – 11 78,96,470 203,727 198,000 82,98,197 2011 – 12 87,34,940 215,107 89,50,047 2012 – 13 2,15,71,430 227,625 2,17,99,055 2013 – 14

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 under section (in Rupees) property 10 (38) of the act on (in account of Rupees) allegedly bogus long- term capital gain (in Rupees) 2010 – 11 78,96,470 203,727 198,000 82,98,197 2011 – 12 87,34,940 215,107 89,50,047 2012 – 13 2,15,71,430 227,625 2,17,99,055 2013 – 14

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 under section (in Rupees) property 10 (38) of the act on (in account of Rupees) allegedly bogus long- term capital gain (in Rupees) 2010 – 11 78,96,470 203,727 198,000 82,98,197 2011 – 12 87,34,940 215,107 89,50,047 2012 – 13 2,15,71,430 227,625 2,17,99,055 2013 – 14

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 under section (in Rupees) property 10 (38) of the act on (in account of Rupees) allegedly bogus long- term capital gain (in Rupees) 2010 – 11 78,96,470 203,727 198,000 82,98,197 2011 – 12 87,34,940 215,107 89,50,047 2012 – 13 2,15,71,430 227,625 2,17,99,055 2013 – 14

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 under section (in Rupees) property 10 (38) of the act on (in account of Rupees) allegedly bogus long- term capital gain (in Rupees) 2010 – 11 78,96,470 203,727 198,000 82,98,197 2011 – 12 87,34,940 215,107 89,50,047 2012 – 13 2,15,71,430 227,625 2,17,99,055 2013 – 14

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 under section (in Rupees) property 10 (38) of the act on (in account of Rupees) allegedly bogus long- term capital gain (in Rupees) 2010 – 11 78,96,470 203,727 198,000 82,98,197 2011 – 12 87,34,940 215,107 89,50,047 2012 – 13 2,15,71,430 227,625 2,17,99,055 2013 – 14

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

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

2,82,16,861/- as business income and denied the\nstandard deduction under section 24(a) amounting to Rs.83,74,762/-\nwithout appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. Thus, gross\ntotal income determined at Rs.2,60,33,302/- as against returned income\nof Rs.1,69,14,565/- is not at all justified and the addition made

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

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

2,82,16,861/- as business income and denied the\nstandard deduction under section 24(a) amounting to Rs.83,74,762/-\nwithout appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. Thus, gross\ntotal income determined at Rs.2,60,33,302/- as against returned income\nof Rs.1,69,14,565/- is not at all justified and the addition made

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

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

2,82,16,861/- as business income and denied the\nstandard deduction under section 24(a) amounting to Rs.83,74,762/-\nwithout appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. Thus, gross\ntotal income determined at Rs.2,60,33,302/- as against returned income\nof Rs.1,69,14,565/- is not at all justified and the addition made may\ndeleted

DCIT(E)-2(1), MUMBAI vs. NEHRU CENTRE, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Bledcit (E) – 2(1) V. Nehru Centre Room No. 519, 5Th Floor Discovery Of India Building Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug 13Th Floor, Dr. Annie Besant Road Worli, Mumbai - 400018 Mumbai – 400 012 Pan: Aaatn2536J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dilip Thakkar Department By : Shri Dilipkumar Shah

2 : The Assessing Officer erred in taking the view that the receipts from hiring of property of the centre are not an income derived from property held under trust. There is no denying of the fact that the properties held by the Appellant Trust are all properties held under Trust. Hence any income arising from such properties are income derived

INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX vs. COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, whereas

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Commercial Development Nfac/Ito Ward 24(1)(1), Corporation, Piramal Chambers, 6Th Floor, Vs. 703, Hariom Chambers, B-16, Lalbaug, Parel, Veera Ind. Estate Off Link Road, Mumbai-400012. Andheri (W), Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aaafc 7020 J Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2018-19 Income Tax Officer, Commercial Development Room No. 604, 6Th Floor, Corporation, Vs. Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, 703, Hariom Chambers, B-16, Parel, Veera Ind. Estate Off Link Road, Mumbai-400012. Andheri (W), Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aaafc 7020 J Appellant Respondent

14-03- 1978. b) Your appellant b) Your appellant prays that, on the facts and circumstances of the prays that, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assessing case, the Assessing Officer may be directed to consider Agreement Officer may be directed to consider Agreement Value as 'Stamp Duty Value' as on date of Agreements and thereby Value

COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 24(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, whereas

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Commercial Development Nfac/Ito Ward 24(1)(1), Corporation, Piramal Chambers, 6Th Floor, Vs. 703, Hariom Chambers, B-16, Lalbaug, Parel, Veera Ind. Estate Off Link Road, Mumbai-400012. Andheri (W), Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aaafc 7020 J Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2018-19 Income Tax Officer, Commercial Development Room No. 604, 6Th Floor, Corporation, Vs. Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, 703, Hariom Chambers, B-16, Parel, Veera Ind. Estate Off Link Road, Mumbai-400012. Andheri (W), Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aaafc 7020 J Appellant Respondent

14-03- 1978. b) Your appellant b) Your appellant prays that, on the facts and circumstances of the prays that, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assessing case, the Assessing Officer may be directed to consider Agreement Officer may be directed to consider Agreement Value as 'Stamp Duty Value' as on date of Agreements and thereby Value

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

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

14 at Model House, Assessee did not disclose any income as income from House Property, therefore, the learned AO estimated the income at the rate of 5% of the cost of acquisition of those properties at Rs. 1,18,380/– for each of the property invoking the provisions of clause (b) of subsection (4) of Section 23 of The Income

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

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

14 at Model House, Assessee did not disclose any income as income from House Property, therefore, the learned AO estimated the income at the rate of 5% of the cost of acquisition of those properties at Rs. 1,18,380/– for each of the property invoking the provisions of clause (b) of subsection (4) of Section 23 of The Income