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

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

house property made in the order were in respect of the items and issues that were settled in the original assessment and therefore were not the subject matter of the special assessment u/s 153A c) your appellant prays that the addition of ₹ 227,625/– be deleted from the total income of the assessee as assessed by the learned

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

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

house property made in the order were in respect of the items and issues that were settled in the original assessment and therefore were not the subject matter of the special assessment u/s 153A c) your appellant prays that the addition of ₹ 227,625/– be deleted from the total income of the assessee as assessed by the learned

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

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

house property made in the order were in respect of the items and issues that were settled in the original assessment and therefore were not the subject matter of the special assessment u/s 153A c) your appellant prays that the addition of ₹ 227,625/– be deleted from the total income of the assessee as assessed by the learned

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

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

house property made in the order were in respect of the items and issues that were settled in the original assessment and therefore were not the subject matter of the special assessment u/s 153A c) your appellant prays that the addition of ₹ 227,625/– be deleted from the total income of the assessee as assessed by the learned

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD ( CORPORATE FINANCE DIVISION),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 6(3), MUMBAI

Bench: the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal preferred by the Assessee vide order, dated 18/05/2009. 4. Not being satisfied with the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A), the Assessee has preferred appeal before this Tribunal. The Revenue has also filed cross-appeal challenging the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A).

house property excluding the portions occupied by the Assessee for the purpose of business or profession can be computed. However, the Revenue has failed to point out corresponding provision providing for Assessment Years: 2006-2007 computation of depreciation and WDV of Block of Assets excluding the WDV of the asset let out during the relevant previous year. 7.8. We note

DY CIT-CC-2(4), MUMBAI vs. LATE SHRI SAWARMAL HISARIA THROUGH L/H SANDEEP HISARIA, MUMBAI

property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment.” 11. We notice that the Ld CIT(A) has taken support of the decision rendered by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of M/s Canara Housing Development. However, in view of the binding decision

ACIT 6(3), MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

house property\nexcluding the portions occupied by the Assessee for the purpose of\nbusiness or profession can be computed. However, the Revenue has\nfailed to point out corresponding provision providing for\ncomputation of depreciation and WDV of Block of Assets excluding\nthe WDV of the asset let out during the relevant previous year.\n7. 8. We note that Section

DY CIT CC 4 (1), MUMBAI vs. M/S KANAKIA SPACES PVT LTD., MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood () Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S Kanakia Spaces Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle – 4(1), Vs. 10Th Floor, 215 Atrium, Andheri Room No. 1918, 19Th Floor, Kurla Road, Andheri (E) Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 059 Mumbai – 400 021 Pan No. Aaack2629J (Revenue) (Assessee) Assessee By : Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, A.R Revenue By : Shri Gurbinder Singh, D.R Date Of Hearing : 11/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 24/08/2021

property will be considered as Nil for a period up to one year from the end of the financial year in which a completion certificate is obtained from the competent authority. In view of the above amendment to section 23, we are not adverting to the case laws relied on by the Ld. Counsel and Ld. DR. In the instant

JOSEPH MUDALIAR,MUMBAI vs. DCIT , -CC 4 (3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

house property and income from other sources being interest income. During the year, the assessee has also earned share of profit from the aforesaid partnership firms, however the same was claimed as exempt. 4. The issue arising in grounds no. 1 to 3, raised in assessee‟s appeal, is pertaining to addition of Rs. 1,02,25,291 as deemed

M/S. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT (IT)1(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blestandard Chartered Bank V. Acit – Range-1(3) Taxation Department, 23-25 Scindia House, Ballard Estate M.G. Road, 3Rd Floor N.M. Marg, Mumbai - 400038 Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aabcs4681D (Appellant) (Respondent) Adit (It)– 2(3) V. Standard Chartered Bank Room No. 120, 1St Floor Taxation Department, 23-25 Scindia House, Ballard Estate M.G. Road, 3Rd Floor N.M. Marg, Mumbai - 400038 Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aabcs4681D (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri P.J. Pardiwala & Assessee Represented By : Shri Fenil Bhatt Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash Department Represented By :

property of the Housing Board. It was held that the expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively on the welfare of the employees and, therefore, constituted legitimate business expenditure. As the assessee company acquired no ownership rights in the tenements, this Court said that the expenditure was incurred merely with a view to carry on the business of the company more

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRE-CIRCLE-6(4), MUMBAI vs. SHRI RAJIV RATAN, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection filed by the assessee is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhthe Dcit, Cc -6(4), Vs. Shri Rajiv Rattan Room No. 1925, 19 Th Floor, 60, 2 Nd Floor, Vasant Marg, Air India Building, Vasant Vihar, Nariman Point, New Delhi - 110057 Mumbai – 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aespr3957D Appellant .. Respondent C.O. No. 126/Mum/2022 (A.Y.2011-12) Shri Rajiv Rattan Vs. The Dcit, Cc -6(4), 60, 2 Nd Floor, Vasant Marg, Room No. 1925, 19 Th Floor, Vasant Vihar, Air India Building, New Delhi - 110057 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aespr3957D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Smt. Riddhi Mishra Respondent By : Meet Shah

House Gurgaon on 14.07.2016 a laptop (Lenovo Think pad) was found in the office chamber of Shri Ashok Sharma (CEO of Indiabulls Group). It was found that in the web browser of this laptop an email id chinta.chat@yahoo.co.in was logged in. In this regard Shri Ashok Sharma in his statement stated that he used to compile the data of unaccounted

SACHIN VILAS CHAUGULE,MUMBAI vs. CIT (APPEALS) , MUMBAI

In the result we set-aside all these 6

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

house property of ₹ 30,000. The learned assessing officer computed the income of the assessee by including the income declared before the settlement commission as well as the income shown by the assessee as per return of income filed under section 153A of the act at the gross total income of ₹ 3,653,280/–, granted deduction under chapter

SACHIN VILAS CHAUGULE,MUMBAI vs. CIT (APPELS), MUMBAI

In the result we set-aside all these 6

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

house property of ₹ 30,000. The learned assessing officer computed the income of the assessee by including the income declared before the settlement commission as well as the income shown by the assessee as per return of income filed under section 153A of the act at the gross total income of ₹ 3,653,280/–, granted deduction under chapter

SACHIN VILAS CHAUGULE,MUMBAI vs. CIT (APPEALS)-47, MUMBAI

In the result we set-aside all these 6

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

house property of ₹ 30,000. The learned assessing officer computed the income of the assessee by including the income declared before the settlement commission as well as the income shown by the assessee as per return of income filed under section 153A of the act at the gross total income of ₹ 3,653,280/–, granted deduction under chapter

SACHIN VILAS CHAUGULE,MUMBAI vs. CIT (APPEALS), MUMBAI

In the result we set-aside all these 6

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

house property of ₹ 30,000. The learned assessing officer computed the income of the assessee by including the income declared before the settlement commission as well as the income shown by the assessee as per return of income filed under section 153A of the act at the gross total income of ₹ 3,653,280/–, granted deduction under chapter

SACHIN VILAS CHAUGULE ,MUMBAI vs. CIT (APPEALS) , MUMBAI

In the result we set-aside all these 6

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

house property of ₹ 30,000. The learned assessing officer computed the income of the assessee by including the income declared before the settlement commission as well as the income shown by the assessee as per return of income filed under section 153A of the act at the gross total income of ₹ 3,653,280/–, granted deduction under chapter

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S ROHAN DEVELOPERS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodassessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2014-15

245D(4) of the Act. Thus the Income Tax Settlement Commission accepted the settlement application by M/s. Riddhi Siddhi Bullion Ltd. without any addition on account of promissory notes upon being fully satisfied with the explanation of M/s. Riddhi Siddhi Bullion Ltd. that no unaccounted income has arisen from such seized pages. In view of these facts

ROHAN DEVELOPERS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodassessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2014-15

245D(4) of the Act. Thus the Income Tax Settlement Commission accepted the settlement application by M/s. Riddhi Siddhi Bullion Ltd. without any addition on account of promissory notes upon being fully satisfied with the explanation of M/s. Riddhi Siddhi Bullion Ltd. that no unaccounted income has arisen from such seized pages. In view of these facts