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

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

201]. It is not the case of the assessee that no notice under section 143 (2) has been issued. Perusal of all these decisions shows that the notice is required to be issued under section 143 (2) of the act prior to making the assessment. In this particular assessment, the learned assessing officer has issued notice under section

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

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

201]. It is not the case of the assessee that no notice under section 143 (2) has been issued. Perusal of all these decisions shows that the notice is required to be issued under section 143 (2) of the act prior to making the assessment. In this particular assessment, the learned assessing officer has issued notice under section

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

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

201]. It is not the case of the assessee that no notice under section 143 (2) has been issued. Perusal of all these decisions shows that the notice is required to be issued under section 143 (2) of the act prior to making the assessment. In this particular assessment, the learned assessing officer has issued notice under section

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

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

201]. It is not the case of the assessee that no notice under section 143 (2) has been issued. Perusal of all these decisions shows that the notice is required to be issued under section 143 (2) of the act prior to making the assessment. In this particular assessment, the learned assessing officer has issued notice under section

ACIT (TDS) -2(1), MUMBAI vs. OMKAR REALTORS AND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the Cross

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2010-2011 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Omkar Realtors & Developers Tax (Tds) – 2(1), Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 615, 6Th Floor, Omkar House, Off Eastern Smt. K.G. Mittal Ayurvedic Hospital Vs. Express Highway, Bldg., Charni Road (W), Opp. Sion Chunabhatti Signal, Mumbai - 400002 Sion, Mumbai - 400022 Pan: Aaaco7919F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 237/Mum/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 6814/Mum/2018) Assessment Year: 2010-2011 Omkar Realtors & Developers Pvt. The Asst. Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax (Tds) – 2(1), Omkar House, Off Eastern Express 6Th Floor, Smt. K.G. Mittal Highway, Vs. Ayurvedic Hospital Bldg., Charni Opp. Sion Chunabhatti Signal, Sion Road (West), East, Mumbai - 400022 Mumbai - 400002 Pan: Aaaco7919F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-2012 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Omkar Realtors & Developers Tax (Tds) – 2(1), Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 615, 6Th Floor, Omkar House, Off Eastern Smt. K.G. Mittal Ayurvedic Hospital Vs. Express Highway, Bldg., Charni Road (W), Opp. Sion Chunabhatti Signal, Mumbai - 400002 Sion, Mumbai - 400022 Pan: Aaaco7919F (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 201 by Finance Act, 2014 being clarificatory in nature, will apply retrospectively. Therefore, the extended limitation period of seven years will apply to assessee’s case. In the further appeal, the coordinate Bench, after hearing both the sides, reversed the findings of the Ld. CIT (A) held that the order passed u/s 201 (1) and 201 (1A) having been

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI vs. SHERIAR PHIROJSHA IRANI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Sandeep Singh Karhail

house properties, in view of fact that one residential property was co-jointly owned in name of assessee and his wife and he could not be treated as 'absolute owner of said property, deduction under section 54F could not be denied to him. We note that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Vegetable Products

M/S QUALITY APPAREL EXPORTERS PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 11(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the Ground No

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 2352 & 2353/Mum/2019 (A.Y: 2012-13 & 2013-14) M/S. Quality Apparel Vs. Ito -Ward -11(1)(1) Exports Pvt Ltd, Room No. 201, Unit No.4, Wicel Bldg, 2Ndfloor,Aayakar Seepz, Midc, Moral, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai Mumbai – 400020 400093 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacq1711F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Mr.T.Shankar.Dr Date Of Hearing 20.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 04.05.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: These Are The Appeals Filed The By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 250 Of The Act.

201, Unit No.4, Wicel Bldg, 2ndFloor,Aayakar Seepz, MIDC, Moral, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai Mumbai – 400020 400093 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAACQ1711F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : None Respondent by : Mr.T.Shankar.DR Date of Hearing 20.04.2022 Date of Pronouncement 04.05.2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JM: These are the appeals filed

SHWETA SINGH,MUMBAI vs. ITO-WARD 33(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

house properties, in view of fact that one residential property was co-jointly owned in name of assessee and his wife and he could not be treated as 'absolute owner of said property, deduction under section 54F could not be denied to him. We note that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Vegetable Products

SEA SCAN MARINE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ,GOA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(3), MUMBAI

Accordingly, ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

House Property’ and not ‘Business Income’. For that proposition, she relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vrs. New India Industries Ltd. (1993) 201 ITR 208 (Guj). 10. On the other hand, Ld DR relied on the order passed by revenue authorities as well as order of ITAT

ZAINUL ABEDIN GHASWALA,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Zainul Abedin Ghaswala, Cit(A), Nfac, At 142/148, Ghaswala Estate Pratyakshakarbhavan, C- S.V. Road, Jogeshwari (West), Vs. 13, Bandra Kurla Mumbai-400102. Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Afnpg 7463 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Sunil M. Makhija– Advocate Revenue By : Mr. A.N. Bhalekar, Dr : Date Of Hearing 04/05/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 22/05/2023 Order

201), Shri Sikander Suleman Ghaswalla (flat no. 202), Shri Abdul Rahim Ghaswalla (flat Suleman Ghaswalla (flat no. 202), Shri Abdul Rahim Ghaswalla (flat Suleman Ghaswalla (flat no. 202), Shri Abdul Rahim Ghaswalla (flat no. 301), Shri Munaf& Moinuddin Anwar Ghaswalla (legal heirs of no. 301), Shri Munaf& Moinuddin Anwar Ghaswalla (legal heirs of no. 301), Shri Munaf& Moinuddin Anwar Ghaswalla

UNIQUE ESTATES DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleunique Estates Dcit, Cc-4(1) बनाम/ Room No. 1906, 19Th Floor, Development Co. Ltd., Vs. Construction House-B, 2Nd Air India Bldg. Nariman Floor, 623, Linking Road, Point, Mumbai – Khar (West), 400 021. Mumbai-400 052. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacu0699N .. (""यथ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant)

section 23 of the Act and the judicial decisions and finally observed that the Annual Letting value (ALV) of the finished flats held by the assessee as closing stock has to be treated as Income from House Property after allowing the deductions. The A.O. worked out ALV @ 7% on the investments of flats being Rs. 1,71,71,201

DCIT(OSD)(TDS)-2(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHOPPERS STOP LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, all the grounds raised by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

201(1). The ld AR further submitted that the facts for the year under consideration is identical and therefore the above decision is applicable for the year under consideration also. In this regard we notice that the coordinate bench in assessee's own case for AY 2017-18 while considering the similar issue held that – “12. We have heard both

DCIT(OSD)(TDS)-2(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHOPPERS STOP LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, all the grounds raised by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

201(1). The ld AR further submitted that the facts for the year under consideration is identical and therefore the above decision is applicable for the year under consideration also. In this regard we notice that the coordinate bench in assessee's own case for AY 2017-18 while considering the similar issue held that – “12. We have heard both

MANJU RAKESH JAIN,MUMBAI vs. PCIT, MUMBAI-20, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Manju Rakesh Jain, Pcit, Mumbai-20 704-A, Highland Park, Lokhanwala 418, 4Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Complex, Andheri West, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400058. Mumbai-400012. Pan No. Aaepj 9613 N Appellant Respondent

house property income if the same is allowable under the relevant provisions of the if the same is allowable under the relevant provisions of the if the same is allowable under the relevant provisions of the Act. In this case Act. In this case, interest income has been received from , interest income has been received from Sanyam Sanyam Sanyam Realtors

SHRI VIVEK TALWAR,MUMBAI vs. ACIT- CC - 46 , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanshri Vivek Talwar Acit, Central Cricle-46, Room No. 659, 6Th Floor, 17-B, Ill Palazzo, Ridge Road, Malabar Hill, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Mumbai-400006. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan: Aaapt3994Q Appellant Respondent Shri Vivek Talwar Acit, Central Cricle-46, Room No. 659, 6Th Floor, 17-B, Ill Palazzo, Ridge Road, Malabar Hill, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Mumbai-400006. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan: Aaapt3994Q Appellant Respondent

201). The Assessing Officer without discussing the facts of those case held that facts are identical and disallowed the entire expenses in restoration proceeding, the assessment order was passed in a hurriedly manner. The Assessing Officer disallowed the entire/expenses. No fair and property opportunity was given to the assessee and both the addition was upheld without verification of facts

PEGASUS PROPERTIES P. LTD.,PUNE vs. DY CIT, CC-2(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

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

CANARA BANK (E-SYNDICATE) BANDRA WEST II BRANCH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS , MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeal under consideration are allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Ms. Renu Jauhri

Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) and Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) have fixed deposits with the bank, however, while crediting payment of interest on such deposits, no TDS was deducted by the Bank, during the financial year under consideration. Canara Bank (e-Syndicate Bank) 7. The assessee during the spot verification submitted that as per the provisions

CANARA BANK (E-SYNDICATE) BANDRA WEST II BRANCH, MUMBAI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS , MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeal under consideration are allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Ms. Renu Jauhri

Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) and Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) have fixed deposits with the bank, however, while crediting payment of interest on such deposits, no TDS was deducted by the Bank, during the financial year under consideration. Canara Bank (e-Syndicate Bank) 7. The assessee during the spot verification submitted that as per the provisions