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

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

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 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 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

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

DIRECTI INTERNET SOLUTIONS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 5(1)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

22, the annual value of any property shall be deemed to be shall be deemed to be- (a)the sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to let the sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to let the sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to let from year to year; from year

DIRECTI INTERNET SOLUTIONS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 5(1)(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

22, the annual value of any property shall be deemed to be shall be deemed to be- (a)the sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to let the sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to let the sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to let from year to year; from year

ACIT CENTRAL CIR. 6(4), MUMBAI vs. SHRI AJAY VIRENDRA ARORA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2149/Mum/2021 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Ajay Virendra Acit-Cen.Circle – 6(4), Arora, R. No. 1925, 19Th Floor, Air 6Th Floor, S14, Solitaire India Building, Nariman बिधम/ Corporate Park, Guru Point, Mumbai-400 021 Vs. Hargovindji Marg, Chakala, Andheri(East), Mumbai-400 093 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Addpa6742R (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Salil Mishra, Ld. Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Jitendra Jain/ Shri Ravikant Pathak, Ld. Ars सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 03.10.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 22.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Impugned Order Dated 25.08.2021, Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-54, Mumbai For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed U/S 153A R.W.S.

22)(e) of the Income tax Act, 1963." 2. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in treating the account of the assessee in the books of D'Decor Exports Private Limited as shifting, current and/or running account, referring to Section 19 of the Limitation

YOGESH MEHRA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Yogesh Mehra, The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Flat No. 201 Krishna Presidency Tax, Central Circle-3(1), Air India Society North South Road No.8, Vs. Bldg. 19Th Flr, Mumbai-400 021 Vile Parle West, Mumbai-400 049 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaapm6139N

section 2(22)(e). 4. The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend and/or delete all or any of the foregoing grounds of appeal.” 02. Brief fact of the case shows that assessee is an individual and derived income from house property

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

2) consists of mor consists of more than 54[two houses]— (a) the provisions of that sub (a) the provisions of that sub-section shall apply only in section shall apply only in respect of 55[two] of such houses, which the assessee respect of 55[two] of such houses, which the assessee respect of 55[two] of such houses

DY CIT CC-1(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

e. the interest income is shown as other income f. the loans and advances are non-current assets therefore they are not lent as a normal business activity g. assessee has not shown income from financial activities in profit and loss account for earlier financial years h. in return nature of business of financial services are not disclosed

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

e. the interest income is shown as other income f. the loans and advances are non-current assets therefore they are not lent as a normal business activity g. assessee has not shown income from financial activities in profit and loss account for earlier financial years h. in return nature of business of financial services are not disclosed