MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

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

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

Housing and Urban Development Department, the Commissioner for Industrial Development and Director of Industries and Commerce, the Chairman and Managing Director, Karnataka State Industrial Investment and Development Corporation Limited, the Chairman, Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, the Director of Town Planning, the Managing Director, Karnataka State Small Industries Development Corporation Limited, the Managing Director, Karnataka State Financial Corporation, the Executive

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

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

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

Housing and Urban Development Department, the Commissioner for Industrial Development and Director of Industries and Commerce, the Chairman and Managing Director, Karnataka State Industrial Investment and Development Corporation Limited, the Chairman, Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, the Director of Town Planning, the Managing Director, Karnataka State Small Industries Development Corporation Limited, the Managing Director, Karnataka State Financial Corporation, the Executive

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

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

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

Housing and Urban Development Department, the Commissioner for Industrial Development and Director of Industries and Commerce, the Chairman and Managing Director, Karnataka State Industrial Investment and Development Corporation Limited, the Chairman, Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, the Director of Town Planning, the Managing Director, Karnataka State Small Industries Development Corporation Limited, the Managing Director, Karnataka State Financial Corporation, the Executive

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

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

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

Housing and Urban Development Department, the Commissioner for Industrial Development and Director of Industries and Commerce, the Chairman and Managing Director, Karnataka State Industrial Investment and Development Corporation Limited, the Chairman, Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, the Director of Town Planning, the Managing Director, Karnataka State Small Industries Development Corporation Limited, the Managing Director, Karnataka State Financial Corporation, the Executive

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

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

2 :- addition of ₹ 227,625/– as Notional income from house property u/s 22[Para seven, page number 10-18 of CIT (A) order dated 12/3/2021] a) the learned CIT (A) order in law and on facts in confirming the action of the learned AO in making the addition of 427,625/– on account of notional income Under the head income

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

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

2 :- addition of ₹ 227,625/– as Notional income from house property u/s 22[Para seven, page number 10-18 of CIT (A) order dated 12/3/2021] a) the learned CIT (A) order in law and on facts in confirming the action of the learned AO in making the addition of 427,625/– on account of notional income Under the head income

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

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

2 :- addition of ₹ 227,625/– as Notional income from house property u/s 22[Para seven, page number 10-18 of CIT (A) order dated 12/3/2021] a) the learned CIT (A) order in law and on facts in confirming the action of the learned AO in making the addition of 427,625/– on account of notional income Under the head income

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

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

2 :- addition of ₹ 227,625/– as Notional income from house property u/s 22[Para seven, page number 10-18 of CIT (A) order dated 12/3/2021] a) the learned CIT (A) order in law and on facts in confirming the action of the learned AO in making the addition of 427,625/– on account of notional income Under the head income

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

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

2 :- addition of ₹ 227,625/– as Notional income from house property u/s 22[Para seven, page number 10-18 of CIT (A) order dated 12/3/2021] a) the learned CIT (A) order in law and on facts in confirming the action of the learned AO in making the addition of 427,625/– on account of notional income Under the head income

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

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

2 :- addition of ₹ 227,625/– as Notional income from house property u/s 22[Para seven, page number 10-18 of CIT (A) order dated 12/3/2021] a) the learned CIT (A) order in law and on facts in confirming the action of the learned AO in making the addition of 427,625/– on account of notional income Under the head income

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

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

Section 2(15). indicated by proviso (ii) to Section 2(15). 174. The insertion of Section 13(8)144 , the seventeenth 74. The insertion of Section 13(8)144 , the seventeenth 74. The insertion of Section 13(8)144 , the seventeenth proviso to Section 10(23C) and third proviso to Section proviso to Section 10(23C) and third proviso

DCIT CC 4(2), MUMBAI vs. ROCKFORT ESTATE DEVELOPERS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the Cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Cc-4(2) Vs M/S Rockfort Estate Room No. 1918, 19Th Developers Pvt Ltd Floor, Air India Bldg, 1,Leela Baug, Andheri – Nariman Point, Kurla, Mumbai – 400021. Mumbai – 400051. Pan/Gir No. : Aabcr7896K Appellant .. Respondent Co No. 72/Mum/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 4091/Mum/2019 A.Y 2014-15) M/S Rockfort Estate Vs Dcit, Cc-4(2) Developers Pvt Ltd Room No. 1918, 19Th 1, Leela Baug,Andheri Floor, Air India Bldg, – Kurla, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400051. Mumbai – 400021. Pan/Gir No. : Aabcr7896K Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Mr.Rahul Hakani.Ar Revenue By : Mr.S.N. Kabra.Dr Date Of Hearing 28.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25.04.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-52

250 of the Act and the assessee has filed the cross objections. 2. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR of the assessee submitted that there is a delay in filing the cross objections (C.O.) before the Hon’ble Tribunal and explained that due to Covid-19 pandemic, the filling was delayed and relied on the decision

ISLAND STAR MALL DEVELOPES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI SUBURBAN vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 6(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

250 of the Act. 2. Since the issues involved in these appeals are common, identical and interlinked, hence they are clubbed, heard and a consolidated order is passed. For the sake of convenience, we shall take up ITA No. 2246/Mum/2023, A.Y 2012-13 as lead case and the facts narrated. The Assessee has raised the fallowing grounds of appeal

ISLAND STAR MALL DEVELOPES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 6(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

250 of the Act. 2. Since the issues involved in these appeals are common, identical and interlinked, hence they are clubbed, heard and a consolidated order is passed. For the sake of convenience, we shall take up ITA No. 2246/Mum/2023, A.Y 2012-13 as lead case and the facts narrated. The Assessee has raised the fallowing grounds of appeal

ISLAND STAR MALL DEVELOPES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 6(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

250 of the Act. 2. Since the issues involved in these appeals are common, identical and interlinked, hence they are clubbed, heard and a consolidated order is passed. For the sake of convenience, we shall take up ITA No. 2246/Mum/2023, A.Y 2012-13 as lead case and the facts narrated. The Assessee has raised the fallowing grounds of appeal

ISLAND STAR MALL DEVELOPES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI SUBURBAN vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 6(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

250 of the Act. 2. Since the issues involved in these appeals are common, identical and interlinked, hence they are clubbed, heard and a consolidated order is passed. For the sake of convenience, we shall take up ITA No. 2246/Mum/2023, A.Y 2012-13 as lead case and the facts narrated. The Assessee has raised the fallowing grounds of appeal

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 6(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S ISLAND STAR MALL DEVELOPERS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

250 of the Act. 2. Since the issues involved in these appeals are common, identical and interlinked, hence they are clubbed, heard and a consolidated order is passed. For the sake of convenience, we shall take up ITA No. 2246/Mum/2023, A.Y 2012-13 as lead case and the facts narrated. The Assessee has raised the fallowing grounds of appeal