SAI BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS,VASHI vs. PCIT-27, VASHI

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalsaibuildersanddevelopers, Vs Pr.Cit-27, B12,Ashiana,Plotno.15, Roomno.401, Sector17,Vashi, 4Thflr,Towerno.6, Navi Mumbai-400703. Vashi Railway Stationcomplex,Vashi, Navimumbai-400703. Pan/Gir No. : Abbfs0092C Appellant .. Respondent

House Property income in respect of stock-in-trade during A.Y.2018-19 corresponding to F.Y.2017-18 as this year does not fall within the ambit of the provisions of section 23(5) of Income Tax Act. Factually speaking in this case, assessee has offered income in various assessment years, as under: A.Y Profits Offered to Sales % of Net tax on estimated recognized

NATIONAL STOCK EXCHANGE OF INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIR-7(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result ground no.1 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed and grounds no

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.730 & 731/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18) National Stock Exchange Vs. Dcit, Circle 7(1)(1) Of India Limited Room No. 126, 1 St Floor, Exchange Plaza, Bandra Aaykar Bhavan, Kurla Complex, Bandra M.K. Road, East, Mumbai – 400051 Churchgate -400 020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacn1797L Appellant .. Respondent

House Property having treated Rs.1,05,72,994/-recovered from licensees as rental income and the reasons assigned for not doing so is wrong and contrary to the facts of the case, the provisions of the Income Tax Act. 1961 and the Rules made thereunder. (d) Without prejudice, the ld. CIT(A), NFAC erred in not considering the amount

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'. A. The decision of the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Mumbai in Appellant's own case for AY 2013-14 and AY 2014-15 and AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 19. The Appellant wishes to submits that the issue of addition of deemed rent on account of unsold units has been dealt with

RAJU MOHAN GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRLE - 5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Section 23(4)(b), he estimated 5% of the acquisition cost and worked out and undisclosed income from „house property‟ at Rs.3,91,467/- in all the assessment years. 9. The ld. CIT (A) has confirmed the action of the ld. AO after relying upon certain decisions rather than analyzing the explanation and detailed submissions filed before

RAJU MOHAN GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRLE - 5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Section 23(4)(b), he estimated 5% of the acquisition cost and worked out and undisclosed income from „house property‟ at Rs.3,91,467/- in all the assessment years. 9. The ld. CIT (A) has confirmed the action of the ld. AO after relying upon certain decisions rather than analyzing the explanation and detailed submissions filed before

RAJU MOHAN GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRLE - 5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Section 23(4)(b), he estimated 5% of the acquisition cost and worked out and undisclosed income from „house property‟ at Rs.3,91,467/- in all the assessment years. 9. The ld. CIT (A) has confirmed the action of the ld. AO after relying upon certain decisions rather than analyzing the explanation and detailed submissions filed before

DOSTI REALTY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Arun Khodpia ()

House Property income:- a. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of deemed rent of Rs. 1,76,71,268/- towards unsold flat lying in the closing stock by ignoring various decisions, particularly jurisdictional decisions relied upon by the appellant & also ignoring that the amendment

ABDULLA MOHAMED YUSUF PATEL,MUMBAI vs. NFAC, DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

Section 68 casts liability on assesse - the assessee has to prove assessee has to prove satisfactorily the source and nature of certain satisfactorily the source and nature of certain amounts of cash received amounts of cash received during the accounting year and if not, the ITO accounting year and if not, the ITO is entitled to draw the inference that

ABDULLA MOHAMED YUSUF PATEL ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 20(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

Section 68 casts liability on assesse - the assessee has to prove assessee has to prove satisfactorily the source and nature of certain satisfactorily the source and nature of certain amounts of cash received amounts of cash received during the accounting year and if not, the ITO accounting year and if not, the ITO is entitled to draw the inference that

ACIT, CIR-1(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. MSEB HOLDING COMPANY LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue/Department are dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

House Property computed at Rs. 22,42,24,077/- qua its eligible deductions granted pursuant to section 24(a) of the Act as has been claimed by the Assessee. The AO ultimately rejected the said claim of the Assessee for deduction of the above expenditures and also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing

ACIT, CIR-1(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. MSEB HOLDING COMPANY LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue/Department are dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

House Property computed at Rs. 22,42,24,077/- qua its eligible deductions granted pursuant to section 24(a) of the Act as has been claimed by the Assessee. The AO ultimately rejected the said claim of the Assessee for deduction of the above expenditures and also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing

ACIT- 3(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. MM/S SANOFI INDIA LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS AVENTIS PHARMA LTD)., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

section 80HHC(3) and or as part of profits of business itself 6. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in not upholding the Assessing Officer not to deduct the deduction u/s 801B amounting to Rs. 8,21,42,894/- while determining profit eligible for deduction u/s. 80HHC

M/S SANOFI INDIA LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS AVENTIS PHARMA LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT RG 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

section 80HHC(3) and or as part of profits of business itself 6. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in not upholding the Assessing Officer not to deduct the deduction u/s 801B amounting to Rs. 8,21,42,894/- while determining profit eligible for deduction u/s. 80HHC

HOUSING DEVP. FIN.CORPN. LTD. vs. THE ADIT CIR. 1(1),

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

293\n5,65,10,73,197\n14,44,68,41,490\nLess: Expenses\nProfit Before Tax\n2,47,36,18,

SHRI. HITENDRA C GHADIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 1 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-2012 & Assessment Year: 2013-2014 & Assessment Year: 2014-2015

house property, business, capital gain and property, business, capital gain and other sources. A search and seizure action under section 132(1) of other sources. A search and seizure action under section 132(1) of other sources. A search and seizure action under section 132(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in tax Act, 1961 (in short

SHRI HITENDRA C. GHADIA ,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-2012 & Assessment Year: 2013-2014 & Assessment Year: 2014-2015

house property, business, capital gain and property, business, capital gain and other sources. A search and seizure action under section 132(1) of other sources. A search and seizure action under section 132(1) of other sources. A search and seizure action under section 132(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in tax Act, 1961 (in short

SHRI. HITENDRA C GHADIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 1 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-2012 & Assessment Year: 2013-2014 & Assessment Year: 2014-2015

house property, business, capital gain and property, business, capital gain and other sources. A search and seizure action under section 132(1) of other sources. A search and seizure action under section 132(1) of other sources. A search and seizure action under section 132(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in tax Act, 1961 (in short

MILIND BHOLE,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 2 (3) , THANE

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Milind Bhole Ito Wd-2(3) C/101 Shree Sai Towers Ashar It Park,Wagle Sodwala Lane Nutan, Borivali Vs. Estate, Thane 400 604 (W) Mumbai-400 092 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No.Aahpb9636J Assessee By : Shri.Sumit Mantri Revenue By : Shri. Ujjawal Chavan Srar Date Of Hearing: 22.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.12.2022

house property. Accordingly, the annual value of the property was computed at Rs 72,000/- , granted standard deduction of Rs 21,600, and balance sum of Rs 50,400 was added to the income of the assessee. c. The learned AO further found that assessee has debited various expenditure in its books of account without deduction of tax at source