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

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

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

Section 9 of the Income Tax Act.”\n23. We may observe that the decision in East India Housing (supra)\nwas considered by the Supreme Court in the decision in Chennai\nProperties & Investments Ltd. (supra) wherein the appellant\nassessee was a company incorporated under the Companies Act with\nmain objective, as contained in the Memorandum of Association, to\nacquire the 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

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 2

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

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 2

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

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 2

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

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 2

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

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 2

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

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 2

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

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 2

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

30 Nehru Centre 8. After considering the detailed submissions and the additional grounds of appeal filed by the assessee Ld.CIT(A) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and adjudicated that the assessee is not hit by the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act with the following observations: “Crux of the matter is whether the assessee is engaged

MRS ALKA PANDEY,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -25(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Mrs. Alka Pandey, Asst. Cit-25(2), Maitri – Plot No. 10, Jvpd Scheme, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Vs. Vile Parle (West), Bandra (East), Mumbai-400049. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Agepp 1076 H Appellant Respondent

30% standard deduction available under Section 24(a) for income from house property. Instead, it is taxed as income for income from house property. Instead, it is taxed as income for income from house property. Instead, it is taxed as income from services rendered, which has different tax implications. om services rendered, which has different tax implications.” om services rendered

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

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

2 properties as per property tax levied by the Mumbai municipal Corporation which was not accepted by the AO. The learned assessing officer took 5% of the cost of acquisition of the property to determine standard rate. Undisputedly the Maharashtra rent control Act 1999 is applicable to the properties, however; the standard rent of the area in which the properties

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

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

2 properties as per property tax levied by the Mumbai municipal Corporation which was not accepted by the AO. The learned assessing officer took 5% of the cost of acquisition of the property to determine standard rate. Undisputedly the Maharashtra rent control Act 1999 is applicable to the properties, however; the standard rent of the area in which the properties

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

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

2 properties as per property tax levied by the Mumbai municipal Corporation which was not accepted by the AO. The learned assessing officer took 5% of the cost of acquisition of the property to determine standard rate. Undisputedly the Maharashtra rent control Act 1999 is applicable to the properties, however; the standard rent of the area in which the properties

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

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

2 properties as per property tax levied by the Mumbai municipal Corporation which was not accepted by the AO. The learned assessing officer took 5% of the cost of acquisition of the property to determine standard rate. Undisputedly the Maharashtra rent control Act 1999 is applicable to the properties, however; the standard rent of the area in which the properties

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

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

2 properties as per property tax levied by the Mumbai municipal Corporation which was not accepted by the AO. The learned assessing officer took 5% of the cost of acquisition of the property to determine standard rate. Undisputedly the Maharashtra rent control Act 1999 is applicable to the properties, however; the standard rent of the area in which the properties

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

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

2 properties as per property tax levied by the Mumbai municipal Corporation which was not accepted by the AO. The learned assessing officer took 5% of the cost of acquisition of the property to determine standard rate. Undisputedly the Maharashtra rent control Act 1999 is applicable to the properties, however; the standard rent of the area in which the properties