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

47) (v) with Sec 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 clearly states that once ingress to Transfer of Property Act, 1882 clearly states that once ingress to Transfer of Property Act, 1882 clearly states that once ingress to the property is handed over to the transferee i.e. Vidhi the property is handed over to the transferee i.e. Vidhi

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 2(47)(v) and the\nassessee becomes the owner of the land and building thereon constructed by it.\nc. Since the assessee is owner of the building as discussed above, the assessee shall be\nliable for all the provisions of the Act in respect of the building. The property\nconstructed and remained unsold during the year, shall be liable

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

2,47,75,619 015. The learned assessing officer has made following additions to the respective income for respective assessment years as under:- Assessment Returned Additions made under section 143 (3) Assessed year income read with section 153a for assessment income orders dated 26/12/2018 (in Rupees) (in rupees) (in rupees) Income Disallowance Undisclosed from of exemption income house under section

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

2,47,75,619 015. The learned assessing officer has made following additions to the respective income for respective assessment years as under:- Assessment Returned Additions made under section 143 (3) Assessed year income read with section 153a for assessment income orders dated 26/12/2018 (in Rupees) (in rupees) (in rupees) Income Disallowance Undisclosed from of exemption income house under section

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

2,47,75,619 015. The learned assessing officer has made following additions to the respective income for respective assessment years as under:- Assessment Returned Additions made under section 143 (3) Assessed year income read with section 153a for assessment income orders dated 26/12/2018 (in Rupees) (in rupees) (in rupees) Income Disallowance Undisclosed from of exemption income house under section

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

2,47,75,619 015. The learned assessing officer has made following additions to the respective income for respective assessment years as under:- Assessment Returned Additions made under section 143 (3) Assessed year income read with section 153a for assessment income orders dated 26/12/2018 (in Rupees) (in rupees) (in rupees) Income Disallowance Undisclosed from of exemption income house under section

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

2,47,75,619 015. The learned assessing officer has made following additions to the respective income for respective assessment years as under:- Assessment Returned Additions made under section 143 (3) Assessed year income read with section 153a for assessment income orders dated 26/12/2018 (in Rupees) (in rupees) (in rupees) Income Disallowance Undisclosed from of exemption income house under section

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

2,47,75,619 015. The learned assessing officer has made following additions to the respective income for respective assessment years as under:- Assessment Returned Additions made under section 143 (3) Assessed year income read with section 153a for assessment income orders dated 26/12/2018 (in Rupees) (in rupees) (in rupees) Income Disallowance Undisclosed from of exemption income house under section

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

2,47,75,619 015. The learned assessing officer has made following additions to the respective income for respective assessment years as under:- Assessment Returned Additions made under section 143 (3) Assessed year income read with section 153a for assessment income orders dated 26/12/2018 (in Rupees) (in rupees) (in rupees) Income Disallowance Undisclosed from of exemption income house under section

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 2(47)(v) and the\nassessee becomes the owner of the land and building thereon constructed by it.\nc. Since the assessee is owner of the building as discussed above, the assessee shall be\nliable for all the provisions of the Act in respect of the building. The property\nconstructed and remained unsold during the year, shall be liable

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 2(47)(v) and the\nassessee becomes the owner of the land and building thereon constructed by it.\nc. Since the assessee is owner of the building as discussed above, the assessee shall be\nliable for all the provisions of the Act in respect of the building. The property\nconstructed and remained unsold during the year, shall be liable

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 2(47)(v) and the\nassessee becomes the owner of the land and building thereon constructed by it.\nc. Since the assessee is owner of the building as discussed above, the assessee shall be\nliable for all the provisions of the Act in respect of the building. The property\nconstructed and remained unsold during the year, shall be liable

TARUN KUMAR RATAN SINGH RATHI,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 32(1), MUMBAI

property. With\nthe execution of the agreement, it cannot be said that the\nappellant transferred a right in favour of the purchasee. The\nHon'ble Supreme Court after considering that held\nIn addition to the fact that the term \"transfer\" has been defined\nunder Section 2(47) of the Act, even if looked at the provisions of\nSection

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ROMELL HOUSING LLP, MUMBAI

In the result, the Cross Objection by the assessee is allowed, while the\nRevenue's Appeal is dismissed

Housing LLP,\n101, B-Wing, Gharkul Co-op. Society,\nAzad Road, Vile Parle East,\nMumbai - 400057,\nMaharashtra\nPAN: AATFR3895F\nCross Objector\n(Original Respondent)\nDeputy Commissioner of Income Tax,\nCentral Circle – 4(4),\nMumbai - 400021,\nMaharashtra\nVS.\nRespondent\n(Original Appellant)\nAssessee by : Shri Nitesh Joshi\nRevenue by :Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR\nDate of Hearing – 25/09/2024\nDate of Order

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 :

house property’. The provisions of Section 23(4) of the Act are meant only for properties that are held as investments and not as stock in trade. We find that decision rendered by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Mangla Homes Pvt. Ltd., reported in 325 ITR 281 would not be applicable in the instant case

KENNETH M. MISQUITTA ,MUMBAI vs. ITO, 25(2)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

house. Therefore, the question arises for consideration is whether the property acquired by the assessee by means of perpetual lease for unlimited period would amount to purchase within the meaning of Section 54F of the Act? We have carefully gone through the provisions of Section 2(47

POONAM DHANANJAY SANDU,NAVI MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, () & Shri Girish Agrawal, ()

property to the proposed vendee but that is not the case at hand. 22. In addition to the fact that the term "transfer" has beendefined under Section 2(47) of the Act, even if looked at theprovisions of Section 54 of the Act which gives relief to a person who has transferred his one residential house

THE GEM & JEWELLERY EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (E) RG 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for 10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Gem & Jewellery Export Acit (Exemptions) Range- Promotion Council, 2(1), Vs. Tower-A, Aw-1010, G Block, 5Th Floor, Room No. 519, Bharat Diamond Bourse, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, B.K.C., Bandra East, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaatt 3202 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Gem & Jewellery Export Dcit (Exemptions) Range- Promotion Council, 2(1), Tower-A, Aw-1010, G Block, Vs. 5Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Bharat Diamond Bourse, Lalbaug, B.K.C., Bandra East, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaatt 3202 H Appellant Respondent

47,543/-. According to the Assessing Officer, the assessee . According to the Assessing Officer, the assessee . According to the Assessing Officer, the assessee was generating huge profit year after year from its activities. The was generating huge profit year after year from its activities was generating huge profit year after year from its activities learned Assessing Officer referred to amendment