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

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

property invoking the provisions of clause (b) of subsection (4) of Section 23 of The Income Tax Act. 016. Accordingly, the total income of the assessee was assessed at ₹ 1,251,425/– against the returned income of ₹ 1,023,860/– making an addition of ₹ 227,625/- under the head income from house

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

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

property invoking the provisions of clause (b) of subsection (4) of Section 23 of The Income Tax Act. 016. Accordingly, the total income of the assessee was assessed at ₹ 1,251,425/– against the returned income of ₹ 1,023,860/– making an addition of ₹ 227,625/- under the head income from house

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

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

property invoking the provisions of clause (b) of subsection (4) of Section 23 of The Income Tax Act. 016. Accordingly, the total income of the assessee was assessed at ₹ 1,251,425/– against the returned income of ₹ 1,023,860/– making an addition of ₹ 227,625/- under the head income from house

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

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

property invoking the provisions of clause (b) of subsection (4) of Section 23 of The Income Tax Act. 016. Accordingly, the total income of the assessee was assessed at ₹ 1,251,425/– against the returned income of ₹ 1,023,860/– making an addition of ₹ 227,625/- under the head income from house

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

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

property invoking the provisions of clause (b) of subsection (4) of Section 23 of The Income Tax Act. 016. Accordingly, the total income of the assessee was assessed at ₹ 1,251,425/– against the returned income of ₹ 1,023,860/– making an addition of ₹ 227,625/- under the head income from house

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

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

property invoking the provisions of clause (b) of subsection (4) of Section 23 of The Income Tax Act. 016. Accordingly, the total income of the assessee was assessed at ₹ 1,251,425/– against the returned income of ₹ 1,023,860/– making an addition of ₹ 227,625/- under the head income from house

ACIT, CIRCLE-24(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. NAKUL AGGARWAL, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt.Renu Jauhri ()

properties to one residential house is not a violation of condition for claiming exemption under section 54F of the Act 5. The learned CIT(A)/AD has failed to appreciate the fact that the Appellant had always intended to purchase one residential unit and has in fact purchased one house for the purpose of his residence although the builder

NAKUL AGGARWAL,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-24(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt.Renu Jauhri ()

properties to one residential house is not a violation of condition for claiming exemption under section 54F of the Act 5. The learned CIT(A)/AD has failed to appreciate the fact that the Appellant had always intended to purchase one residential unit and has in fact purchased one house for the purpose of his residence although the builder

MORAJ FINANZ CORPORATION,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCLT CENTRAL CIRLE - 5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as per above direction

Bench: Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

House Property. The appellant cannot force the AO to adopt a particular method of estimating the ALV. Therefore, this argument is also rejected. 5.6. The appellant has also submitted that the premises in question remained vacant throughout the year and hence the appellant is eligible for vacancy allowance under proviso to section 23(1) of the Act as against

MORAJ FINANZ CORPORATION,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as per above direction

Bench: Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

House Property. The appellant cannot force the AO to adopt a particular method of estimating the ALV. Therefore, this argument is also rejected. 5.6. The appellant has also submitted that the premises in question remained vacant throughout the year and hence the appellant is eligible for vacancy allowance under proviso to section 23(1) of the Act as against

MORA] FINANZ CORPORATION,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRLE - 5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as per above direction

Bench: Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

House Property. The appellant cannot force the AO to adopt a particular method of estimating the ALV. Therefore, this argument is also rejected. 5.6. The appellant has also submitted that the premises in question remained vacant throughout the year and hence the appellant is eligible for vacancy allowance under proviso to section 23(1) of the Act as against

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

DEEPA PAMNANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 20(1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm Ms. Deepa Pamnani Vs. The Income Tax Officer Pamnanai Hospital & Ward 20(1)(1) Research Center Piramal Chamber 33 Cf +6Qc , Railway Station Lal Baug Road, Prem Colony, Mandasur Mumbai 400012 Madhya Pradesh 458001 Pan Cstpp4472L (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Akepg6370P Appellant By : Shri Bhupendra Shah Ca & Mr. Kapil Jain Ca Revenue By : Smt. Mahita Nair, Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.06.2024 O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, Am:

Housing society Limited therefore according to AO assessee is giving incorrect reply. The AO was of the view that in view of section 17 of the registration act a person is considered lawful owner of the property only after property is registered in her name, and it is mandatory to register the document for transfer of the property. Therefore

ACIT CIR-6(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. SHRI MOHIT DEEPAK KAMBOJ, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4285/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6384/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit-4(3)(1) बिधम/ Shri Mohit Deepak Room No. 649, 6Th Floor, Kamboj Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- A-15, Venus Co-Op. 400020. Society, R. G. Thandani Marg, Mumbai-400018. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.801/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit, Cir-6(3)(2) बिधम/ Shri Mohit Deepak R. No. 522, 5Th Floor, Kamboj Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. A-15, Venus Co-Op. Road, Mumbai-400020. Society, R. G. Thandani Marg, Mumbai-400018 स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Alckp2213G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Satyaprakash Singh Revenue By: Shri P. R. Mane सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

house property u/s 23(1). 10. In view of the above discussion, the AO is directed to re-compute the addition made towards the Income from deemed let out property by considering the Worli property as the deemed let out property instead of the Juhu property considered in the assessment order. This ground of appeal is therefore partly allowed.” (emphasis

DCIT 4 (3)(1), MUMBAI vs. SHRI MOHIT KEEPAK KAMBOJ, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4285/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6384/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit-4(3)(1) बिधम/ Shri Mohit Deepak Room No. 649, 6Th Floor, Kamboj Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- A-15, Venus Co-Op. 400020. Society, R. G. Thandani Marg, Mumbai-400018. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.801/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit, Cir-6(3)(2) बिधम/ Shri Mohit Deepak R. No. 522, 5Th Floor, Kamboj Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. A-15, Venus Co-Op. Road, Mumbai-400020. Society, R. G. Thandani Marg, Mumbai-400018 स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Alcpk2213Q (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Satyaprakash Singh Revenue By: Shri P. R. Mane सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

house property u/s 23(1). 10. In view of the above discussion, the AO is directed to re-compute the addition made towards the Income from deemed let out property by considering the Worli property as the deemed let out property instead of the Juhu property considered in the assessment order. This ground of appeal is therefore partly allowed.” (emphasis

DCIT 4 (3)(1), MUMBAI vs. MOHIT DEEPAK KAMBOJ, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4285/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6384/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit-4(3)(1) बिधम/ Shri Mohit Deepak Room No. 649, 6Th Floor, Kamboj Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- A-15, Venus Co-Op. 400020. Society, R. G. Thandani Marg, Mumbai-400018. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.801/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit, Cir-6(3)(2) बिधम/ Shri Mohit Deepak R. No. 522, 5Th Floor, Kamboj Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. A-15, Venus Co-Op. Road, Mumbai-400020. Society, R. G. Thandani Marg, Mumbai-400018 स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Alckp2213G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Satyaprakash Singh Revenue By: Shri P. R. Mane सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

house property u/s 23(1). 10. In view of the above discussion, the AO is directed to re-compute the addition made towards the Income from deemed let out property by considering the Worli property as the deemed let out property instead of the Juhu property considered in the assessment order. This ground of appeal is therefore partly allowed.” (emphasis

JCIT (OSD), I/C DCIT, CIRCLE-8(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. TATA AIA LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue stands dismissed and appeal/CO of assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1897/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Jt. Commissioner Of Income बिधम/ M/S. Tata Aia Life Tax (Osd)- I/C Dcit, Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. 14Th Floor, Tower-A, Circle-8(3)(1) Aaykar Bhavan, Room No. Peninsula Business Park, 615, M. K. Road, New Senapati, Bapat Marg, Marine Lines, Mumbai- Lower Parel, Mumbai- 400020. 400013. Cross Objection No. 80/Mum/2023 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.1897/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S. Tata Aia Life बिधम/ Jt. Commissioner Of Insurance Co. Ltd. Income Tax (Osd)- I/C Vs. 14Th Floor, Tower-A, Dcit, Circle-8(3)(1) Peninsula Business Park, Aaykar Bhavan, Room Senapati, Bapat Marg, No. 615, M. K. Road, Lower Parel, Mumbai- New Marine Lines, 400013. Mumbai-400020. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1759/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Jt. Commissioner Of Income बिधम/ M/S. Tata Aia Life Tax (Osd)- I/C Dcit, Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Circle-8(3)(1) 14Th Floor, Tower-A, Aaykar Bhavan, Room No. Peninsula Business Park, 615, M. K. Road, New Senapati, Bapat Marg, Marine Lines, Mumbai- Lower Parel, Mumbai- 400020. 400013. .

251(1)(a) of the Act applicable in case of an appeal against the assessment order.” 5. Brief facts of the case for AY. 2018-19 are that assessee company is engaged in the business of Life Insurance Business in India from year 2001. Since it is a Life Insurance Company, it computed its income u/s 44 of the Income

SAMEER GEHLAUT,LONDON vs. DCIT, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Housing Finance Ltd. (IBHFL) has\nextended approximately Rs.1514 Crores of loans to the entities of Reliance Anil\nDhirubhai Ambani Group (RADAG) i.e., Reliance Interactive Advisors Private\nLimited, Reliance Inceptum Private Limited, Zapak Digital Entertainment Private\nLimited and Relaince Big Entertainment Private Limited in different years. IBHFL\nadvance loans of Rs.130.5 Crores to the entities of Shri Harish Fabiani Group,\nnamely