ARIHANT DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -1, KALYAN

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are\ndismissed

302/- as against returned income\nof Rs.1,69,14,565/- is not at all justified and the addition made may\ndeleted.\n2. The Ld. NFAC erred in confirming the action of the AO without\nappreciating the fact that the godowns constructed by the Appellant are\nbeing held as stock in trade and the same are given lease to several\nparties

ARIHANT DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -1 , KALYAN

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are\ndismissed

302/- as against returned income\nof Rs.1,69,14,565/- is not at all justified and the addition made may\nbe deleted.\n2. The Ld. NFAC erred in confirming the action of the AO without\nappreciating the fact that the godowns constructed by the Appellant are\nbeing held as stock in trade and the same are given lease to several

VISHAL DUTT,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 22(3)(4), NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA N0

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 878/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) Vishal Dutt, बनाम/ Income Tax Officer, Ward 205, B-Wing, Big Splash, – 22(3)(4), V. Sector – 17,Vashi, 3 Rd Floor, Tower No. 6, Navi Mumbai – 400703. Vashi Railway Station, Navi Mumbai – 400 703. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aagpd 1553 M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

section 54F of the Act. The essence of the said provision is whether the assessee who received capital gains has invested in a ITA 878/Mum/2014 18 residential house. Once it is demonstrated that the consideration received on transfer has been invested either in purchasing a residential house or in construction of a residential house even though the transactions

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

house consists of several independent units can be permitted to act as an impediment to the allowance of the deduction under Section 54/54F. It is neither expressly nor by necessary implication prohibited. For the above reasons we are of the view that the Tribunal took the correct view. No substantial question of law arises for our consideration. The appeal

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

house consists of several independent units can be permitted to act as an impediment to the allowance of the deduction under Section 54/54F. It is neither expressly nor by necessary implication prohibited. For the above reasons we are of the view that the Tribunal took the correct view. No substantial question of law arises for our consideration. The appeal

MORAJ BUILDING CONCEPTS PVT.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIR -5(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

section 143(3) cannot disturb the assessment order.” 8. Respectfully following the above said decision, we are inclined to set aside the orders passed for these two Assessment Years as there is no incriminating material found during the search. 9. In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for the A.Ys. 2012-13 and 2013-14 are allowed. ITA.No

MORAZ BUILDING CONCEPTS PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENT CIR 5(2), `MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

section 143(3) cannot disturb the assessment order.” 8. Respectfully following the above said decision, we are inclined to set aside the orders passed for these two Assessment Years as there is no incriminating material found during the search. 9. In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for the A.Ys. 2012-13 and 2013-14 are allowed. ITA.No

MORAJ BUILDING CONCEPTS PVT LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRLE - 5(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

section 143(3) cannot disturb the assessment order.” 8. Respectfully following the above said decision, we are inclined to set aside the orders passed for these two Assessment Years as there is no incriminating material found during the search. 9. In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for the A.Ys. 2012-13 and 2013-14 are allowed. ITA.No

MORAJ BUILDING CONCEPTS PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 5(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

section 143(3) cannot disturb the assessment order.” 8. Respectfully following the above said decision, we are inclined to set aside the orders passed for these two Assessment Years as there is no incriminating material found during the search. 9. In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for the A.Ys. 2012-13 and 2013-14 are allowed. ITA.No

MORAJ BUILDING CONCEPTS PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENT. CIR -5(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

section 143(3) cannot disturb the assessment order.” 8. Respectfully following the above said decision, we are inclined to set aside the orders passed for these two Assessment Years as there is no incriminating material found during the search. 9. In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for the A.Ys. 2012-13 and 2013-14 are allowed. ITA.No

S.P CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. ACIT RG 11(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the Assessment Years

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

302 was determined at ₹.7,691/-. Therefore, Ld. Counsel for the assessee in view of the above decisions, the Municipal rateable value should be considered as the value at which the flat can be reasonable be let out for the purpose of computing the income from house 10 ITA.No. 1865 & 1464 /MUM/2009 ITA.No. 2594 TO 2596, 6857 & 2747/MUM/2011 ITA.No

S.P. CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG 11(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the Assessment Years

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

302 was determined at ₹.7,691/-. Therefore, Ld. Counsel for the assessee in view of the above decisions, the Municipal rateable value should be considered as the value at which the flat can be reasonable be let out for the purpose of computing the income from house 10 ITA.No. 1865 & 1464 /MUM/2009 ITA.No. 2594 TO 2596, 6857 & 2747/MUM/2011 ITA.No

ACIT 11(1), MUMBAI vs. S.P. CORPORATION, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the Assessment Years

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

302 was determined at ₹.7,691/-. Therefore, Ld. Counsel for the assessee in view of the above decisions, the Municipal rateable value should be considered as the value at which the flat can be reasonable be let out for the purpose of computing the income from house 10 ITA.No. 1865 & 1464 /MUM/2009 ITA.No. 2594 TO 2596, 6857 & 2747/MUM/2011 ITA.No

S.P. CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. A.C.I.T.RG.11(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the Assessment Years

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

302 was determined at ₹.7,691/-. Therefore, Ld. Counsel for the assessee in view of the above decisions, the Municipal rateable value should be considered as the value at which the flat can be reasonable be let out for the purpose of computing the income from house 10 ITA.No. 1865 & 1464 /MUM/2009 ITA.No. 2594 TO 2596, 6857 & 2747/MUM/2011 ITA.No

S.P CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. ACIT RG 11(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the Assessment Years

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

302 was determined at ₹.7,691/-. Therefore, Ld. Counsel for the assessee in view of the above decisions, the Municipal rateable value should be considered as the value at which the flat can be reasonable be let out for the purpose of computing the income from house 10 ITA.No. 1865 & 1464 /MUM/2009 ITA.No. 2594 TO 2596, 6857 & 2747/MUM/2011 ITA.No

S.P CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. ACIT RG 11(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the Assessment Years

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

302 was determined at ₹.7,691/-. Therefore, Ld. Counsel for the assessee in view of the above decisions, the Municipal rateable value should be considered as the value at which the flat can be reasonable be let out for the purpose of computing the income from house 10 ITA.No. 1865 & 1464 /MUM/2009 ITA.No. 2594 TO 2596, 6857 & 2747/MUM/2011 ITA.No

S.P. CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. A.C.I.T. RG. 11(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the Assessment Years

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

302 was determined at ₹.7,691/-. Therefore, Ld. Counsel for the assessee in view of the above decisions, the Municipal rateable value should be considered as the value at which the flat can be reasonable be let out for the purpose of computing the income from house 10 ITA.No. 1865 & 1464 /MUM/2009 ITA.No. 2594 TO 2596, 6857 & 2747/MUM/2011 ITA.No

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI vs. SHERIAR PHIROJSHA IRANI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Sandeep Singh Karhail

house properties, in view of fact that one residential property was co-jointly owned in name of assessee and his wife and he could not be treated as 'absolute owner of said property, deduction under section 54F could not be denied to him. We note that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Vegetable Products