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

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

22 of the Act makes 'annual\nvalue' of such a property as income chargeable to tax under this head. How\nannual value is to be determined is provided in Section 23 of the Act. ‘Owner\nof the house property' is defined in Section 27 of the Act which includes\ncertain situations where a person not actually the owner shall

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

22 under the head income from house property. The learned assessing officer disregarded the explanation of the assessee and held that those properties shall be chargeable under the income from house property as annual value is taxable. . According to assessee, the income is not chargeable to tax under the head income from house property is of those properties

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

22 under the head income from house property. The learned assessing officer disregarded the explanation of the assessee and held that those properties shall be chargeable under the income from house property as annual value is taxable. . According to assessee, the income is not chargeable to tax under the head income from house property is of those properties

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

22 under the head income from house property. The learned assessing officer disregarded the explanation of the assessee and held that those properties shall be chargeable under the income from house property as annual value is taxable. . According to assessee, the income is not chargeable to tax under the head income from house property is of those properties

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

22 under the head income from house property. The learned assessing officer disregarded the explanation of the assessee and held that those properties shall be chargeable under the income from house property as annual value is taxable. . According to assessee, the income is not chargeable to tax under the head income from house property is of those properties

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

22 under the head income from house property. The learned assessing officer disregarded the explanation of the assessee and held that those properties shall be chargeable under the income from house property as annual value is taxable. . According to assessee, the income is not chargeable to tax under the head income from house property is of those properties

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

22 under the head income from house property. The learned assessing officer disregarded the explanation of the assessee and held that those properties shall be chargeable under the income from house property as annual value is taxable. . According to assessee, the income is not chargeable to tax under the head income from house property is of those properties

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

22 under the head income from house property. The learned assessing officer disregarded the explanation of the assessee and held that those properties shall be chargeable under the income from house property as annual value is taxable. . According to assessee, the income is not chargeable to tax under the head income from house property is of those properties

PANKAJ ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. JT CIT RG 25(3), 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

22(b) and 26 of the DA clearly establish that the Developer had complete access to the clearly establish that the Developer had complete access to the clearly establish that the Developer had complete access to the property and that he was liable for the actions thereon. property and that he was liable for the actions thereon. property and that

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

22(b) and 26 of the DA clearly establish that the Developer had complete access to the clearly establish that the Developer had complete access to the clearly establish that the Developer had complete access to the property and that he was liable for the actions thereon. property and that he was liable for the actions thereon. property and that

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

22(b) and 26 of the DA clearly establish that the Developer had complete access to the clearly establish that the Developer had complete access to the clearly establish that the Developer had complete access to the property and that he was liable for the actions thereon. property and that he was liable for the actions thereon. property and that

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

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

22 of the Act makes 'annual\nvalue' of such a property as income chargeable to tax under this head. How\nannual value is to be determined is provided in Section 23 of the Act. ‘Owner\nof the house property' is defined in Section 27 of the Act which includes\ncertain situations where a person not actually the owner shall

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

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

22 of the Act makes 'annual\nvalue' of such a property as income chargeable to tax under this head. How\nannual value is to be determined is provided in Section 23 of the Act. ‘Owner\nof the house property' is defined in Section 27 of the Act which includes\ncertain situations where a person not actually the owner shall

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

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

22 of the Act makes 'annual\nvalue' of such a property as income chargeable to tax under this head. How\nannual value is to be determined is provided in Section 23 of the Act. ‘Owner\nof the house property' is defined in Section 27 of the Act which includes\ncertain situations where a person not actually the owner shall

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

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

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

22 under the head income from house property. The learned assessing officer disregarded the explanation of the assessee and held that those properties shall be chargeable under the income from house property as annual value is taxable. . According to assessee, the income is not chargeable to tax under the head income from house property is of those properties

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

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

22 under the head income from house property. The learned assessing officer disregarded the explanation of the assessee and held that those properties shall be chargeable under the income from house property as annual value is taxable. . According to assessee, the income is not chargeable to tax under the head income from house property is of those properties

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

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

22 under the head income from house property. The learned assessing officer disregarded the explanation of the assessee and held that those properties shall be chargeable under the income from house property as annual value is taxable. . According to assessee, the income is not chargeable to tax under the head income from house property is of those properties