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

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. 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

AMIRALI AKBARALI ENGINEER,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 24(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2012-13 Amirali Akbarali Engineer, Vs Acit, A/201, Senha Apna Ghar, Ward-24(1), Unit No.11, Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Swami Samarth Nagar, Mumbai Andheri (West), Mumbai-400053 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aacpe9331N

property which was sold during the year under consideration and the resultant long term capital gains were offered from sale of the said house; that he had taken the sale consideration of Rs.1,99,50,000/- for arriving at the capital gains even though the sale deed mentioned the sale consideration as Rs. 2,66,00,000/-; that

SMT.MANJU MAHENDRA GOYAL,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 19(2)(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2012-13 Smt. Manju Mahendra Goyal Income Tax Officer-19(2)(3), A/802, Surya Apartments, Room No.2018, Matru बनाम/ 53, Bhulabhai Desai Road, Mandir, Tardeo Road, Vs. Mumbai-400026 Mumbai-400007 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.Aafpg2990N

property. Given that the revenue does not dispute that the second transaction of purchase took place, it has to necessarily follow that the cost of improvement was deductible. While coming to the aforesaid conclusion, the Hon'ble High Court considered the decision in CIT v. R.L. Sood [2000] 245 ITR 727/108 Taxman 227 (Delhi) (para 3), Suraj Lamp & Industries

SHARAN HOSPITALITY P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 9(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6717/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Sharan Hospitality Private Limited Dy. Cit – Circle 9(3) बनाम/ Ground Floor, Gys Infinity, Mumbai Paranjape ‘B’, Scheme, Subhas Road, Vs. Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-57 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aagcs 8608 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. Priyanka Jain ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K. Mahondas सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 26.5.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 12.9.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 18.9.2012, Dismissing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting Its Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2009- 10 Vide Order Dated 22.12.2011. 2. The Only Issue Arising In This Appeal Is The Correct Amount At Which The Annual Value In Respect Of The Assessee’S Swami Vivekanand (S.V.) Road, Mumbai Property

house property to be actually let, it has stated so, as in section 23(3)(a). Not so doing would lead to absurd results, as in a case where the property is not let for a single day of the year, and is vacant for the whole year, so that its AV would stand to be computed taking

ITO 16(1)(4), MUMBAI vs. SHASHANKA GHOSH, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer-16(1)(4), Vs Shri Shashanka Ghosh, Room No.438, 4Th Floor, C-701, Jay Bharat Chs Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Off. Yari Road,Near Amarnath M. K. Road, Tower, Varsova Andher (West), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400061 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Acwpg5915E

property. Given that the revenue does not dispute that the second transaction of purchase took place, it has to necessarily follow that the cost of improvement was deductible. While coming to the aforesaid conclusion, the Hon'ble High Court considered the decision in CIT v. R.L. Sood [2000] 245 ITR 727/108 Taxman 227 (Delhi) (para 3), Suraj Lamp & Industries

BASARIBANU MOHD RAFIQ LATIWALA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5420/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Smt. Basaribanu Mohd. Rafiq Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Latiwala, 12(3)(3), V. 701/702 Neelam, Aayakar Bhavan, Rizvi Complex, Mumbai. Carter Road, Bandra (West), Mumbai – 400 050. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Abgpl0686G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

Section 54F of 1961 Act of the amount which was actually paid towards acquisition of the new residential house property of Rs. 52,47,251

DCIT CENT. CIR. -4(1), CENTRAL RANGE-4, MUMBAI vs. M/S. RUNWAL DEVELOPERS P. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sood

251,419 37,901,560 Electricity Generation 14,919,121 16,799,949 Stock of shops at R.Mall -Mulund 191,249,041 190,209,429 Increase/ /Decrease) in Stocks 10 (218,729,175) 274,555,611 Closing Work in Progress Runwal Pride -Mulund 280,615,633 270,651,123 Runwal Symphont/-Santacruz 356,049,199 - Gabriel Property Mulund

VASWANI TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri G. Manjunatha

house property’, whereas the AO has taken a view that it is assessable under the head ‘income from other sources’. But all the facts necessary for computation of income have been disclosed in the return filed u/s. 139(1) of the Act and also deduction claimed u/s. 24 towards excess recovery of outgoings has been withdrawn in the return filed

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

RUNWAL DEVELOPEMENT P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 23, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No 4824/Mum/2014 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

251,419 37,901,560 Electricity Generation 14,919,121 16,799,949 Stock of shops at R.Mall –Mulund 191,249,041 190,209,429 Increase/(Decrease) in Stocks 10 (218,729,175) 274,555,611 Closing Work in Progress Runwal Pride –Mulund 280,615,633 270,651,123 Runwal Symphony-Santacruz 356,049,199 - Gabriel Property Mulund

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