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

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

23] income\nderived from rents by a company whose sole object was to acquire lands,\nbuild houses and let them to tenants and whose sole business was\nmanagement and collection of rents from the said properties, was held\nassessable under Section 9 and not under Section 10 of the Income Tax Act. It\nwas observed in that case that merely

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

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

23] income\nderived from rents by a company whose sole object was to acquire lands,\nbuild houses and let them to tenants and whose sole business was\nmanagement and collection of rents from the said properties, was held\nassessable under Section 9 and not under Section 10 of the Income Tax Act. It\nwas observed in that case that merely

ITO(E)-1(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. BHAVITHA FOUNDATION, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2021-22

houses in India for residential purposes and which is eligible for deduction purposes and which is eligible for deduction under clause (viii) of under clause (viii) of sub-section (1) of section 36;" section (1) of section 36;" It is pertinent that receipt of shares as corpus donation is in It is pertinent that receipt of shares as corpus donation

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

23. (1) For the purposes of section 22, the annual value of any property any property shall be deemed to be— (a) the sum for which the property might reasonably be (a) the sum for which the property might reasonably be (a) the sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to let from year to year; or expected

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(4), MUMBAI vs. RUSTOMJI EVERSHINE JOINT VENTURE, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue for AY 2013-14 &

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1349/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit, Central Circle-2(4) बिधम/ Rustomjee Evershine Room No. 802, 8Th Floor, Joint Venture Vs. Prathishtha Bhavan, M. K. Global City, Narangi Road, Churchgate, Mumbai- Bypass Road, Close To 400020. Viva College, Virar (W), Virar-401303. Cross Objection No. 27/Mum/2023 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.1349/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Rustomjee Evershine Joint बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-2(4) Room No. 802, 8Th Floor, Venture Vs. Global City, Narangi Prathishtha Bhavan, M. K. Bypass Road, Close To Viva Road, Churchgate, College, Virar (W), Virar- Mumbai-400020. 401303. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.1824 & 1825/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2014-15) Dcit, Central Circle-2(4) बिधम/ Rustomjee Evershine Room No. 802, 8Th Floor, Joint Venture Vs. Prathishtha Bhavan, M. K. Global City, Narangi Road, Churchgate, Mumbai- Bypass Road, Close To 400020. Viva College, Virar (W), Virar-401303. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaar7687M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Naresh Kumar Revenue By: Shri P. D. Chougule (Addl. Cit) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 25/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/07/2023

section 23(5) which is applicable from AY 2018-2019 which reads as under, “Where the property consisting of any building or land appurtenant there to is held as stock-in trade and the property of any part of the property is not let during the whole or any part of the previous year, the annual value of such property

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4) , MUMBAI vs. RUSTOMJEE EVERSHINE JOINT VENTURE , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue for AY 2013-14 &

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1349/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit, Central Circle-2(4) बिधम/ Rustomjee Evershine Room No. 802, 8Th Floor, Joint Venture Vs. Prathishtha Bhavan, M. K. Global City, Narangi Road, Churchgate, Mumbai- Bypass Road, Close To 400020. Viva College, Virar (W), Virar-401303. Cross Objection No. 27/Mum/2023 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.1349/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Rustomjee Evershine Joint बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-2(4) Room No. 802, 8Th Floor, Venture Vs. Global City, Narangi Prathishtha Bhavan, M. K. Bypass Road, Close To Viva Road, Churchgate, College, Virar (W), Virar- Mumbai-400020. 401303. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.1824 & 1825/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2014-15) Dcit, Central Circle-2(4) बिधम/ Rustomjee Evershine Room No. 802, 8Th Floor, Joint Venture Vs. Prathishtha Bhavan, M. K. Global City, Narangi Road, Churchgate, Mumbai- Bypass Road, Close To 400020. Viva College, Virar (W), Virar-401303. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaar7687M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Naresh Kumar Revenue By: Shri P. D. Chougule (Addl. Cit) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 25/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/07/2023

section 23(5) which is applicable from AY 2018-2019 which reads as under, “Where the property consisting of any building or land appurtenant there to is held as stock-in trade and the property of any part of the property is not let during the whole or any part of the previous year, the annual value of such property

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4) , MUMBAI vs. RUSTOMJEE EVERSHINE JOINT VENTURE , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue for AY 2013-14 &

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1349/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit, Central Circle-2(4) बिधम/ Rustomjee Evershine Room No. 802, 8Th Floor, Joint Venture Vs. Prathishtha Bhavan, M. K. Global City, Narangi Road, Churchgate, Mumbai- Bypass Road, Close To 400020. Viva College, Virar (W), Virar-401303. Cross Objection No. 27/Mum/2023 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.1349/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Rustomjee Evershine Joint बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-2(4) Room No. 802, 8Th Floor, Venture Vs. Global City, Narangi Prathishtha Bhavan, M. K. Bypass Road, Close To Viva Road, Churchgate, College, Virar (W), Virar- Mumbai-400020. 401303. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.1824 & 1825/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2014-15) Dcit, Central Circle-2(4) बिधम/ Rustomjee Evershine Room No. 802, 8Th Floor, Joint Venture Vs. Prathishtha Bhavan, M. K. Global City, Narangi Road, Churchgate, Mumbai- Bypass Road, Close To 400020. Viva College, Virar (W), Virar-401303. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaar7687M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Naresh Kumar Revenue By: Shri P. D. Chougule (Addl. Cit) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 25/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/07/2023

section 23(5) which is applicable from AY 2018-2019 which reads as under, “Where the property consisting of any building or land appurtenant there to is held as stock-in trade and the property of any part of the property is not let during the whole or any part of the previous year, the annual value of such property

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

house property. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned lower authorities in assuming 5% of the cost of the investment as the annual value of the property which can be taxed under section 23

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

house property. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned lower authorities in assuming 5% of the cost of the investment as the annual value of the property which can be taxed under section 23

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

house property. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned lower authorities in assuming 5% of the cost of the investment as the annual value of the property which can be taxed under section 23

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

house property. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned lower authorities in assuming 5% of the cost of the investment as the annual value of the property which can be taxed under section 23

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

house property. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned lower authorities in assuming 5% of the cost of the investment as the annual value of the property which can be taxed under section 23

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

house property. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned lower authorities in assuming 5% of the cost of the investment as the annual value of the property which can be taxed under section 23

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

house property. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned lower authorities in assuming 5% of the cost of the investment as the annual value of the property which can be taxed under section 23

CLASSIC MALL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 6(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17

5. Before delving on the issue, we first apprise ourselves with the provisions contained in section 23(1) which is reproduced as under: “23. (1) For the purposes of section 22, the annual value of any property shall be deemed to be— (a) the sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to let from year to year

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, Hence, addition of Rs.60,000/- and Rs.12,72,949/- may directed to be deleted. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case no addition on account of deemed rental income could be made in respect of unsold stock for AY 2014-2015. As the amendment had been brought in statute in section 23(5

RAMESH DUNGARSHI SHAH,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INOCME TAX, CIRCLE-3, , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri. Girish Agarwal, Am Ramesh Dungarshi Shah Deputy Commissioner Of Income 108, Shreedhar Apartment, Maulana Tax, Circle – 3, Kalyan Vs. 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, Murbad Azad Road, Dombivali, East, Thane – 421201. Road, Kalyan West – 421301. Pan/Gir No. Aavps0931K (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Devendra Jain, Adv. (Virtually) : Shri. Asif Karmali (Sr. Dr) Respondent By : 14.02.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 14.05.2025 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short) Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ For Short) 2015-16. 2. It Is Observed That The Assessee Has Filed This Present Appeal With A Delay Of 47 Days Beyond The Period Of Limitation For Which The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condoning The Delay Along With The Reasons Specified For The Delay. After Hearing The Rival Contentions, We Deem It Fit To Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal For The Reason That There Was ‘Sufficient Cause’ & Bonafide Reasons For The Delay. Delay Condoned.

house property’, where the ld. AO has taken the notional rent of unsold shops/flats at Rs. 5,46,000/- as per the provision of Section 23

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -23(1), MUMBAI vs. LAXMI FINANCE AND LEASING COMPANIES CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue and Cross

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

property 4 Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in not applying of the provisions of section 23(1)(a), 23(1)(b), 23(1)(c) of the I. T. Act 1961. 5 Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred