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

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

house under section (in Rupees) property 10 (38) of the act on (in account of Rupees) allegedly bogus long- term capital gain (in Rupees) 2010 – 11 78,96,470 203,727 198,000 82,98,197 2011 – 12 87,34

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

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

house under section (in Rupees) property 10 (38) of the act on (in account of Rupees) allegedly bogus long- term capital gain (in Rupees) 2010 – 11 78,96,470 203,727 198,000 82,98,197 2011 – 12 87,34

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

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

house under section (in Rupees) property 10 (38) of the act on (in account of Rupees) allegedly bogus long- term capital gain (in Rupees) 2010 – 11 78,96,470 203,727 198,000 82,98,197 2011 – 12 87,34

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

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

house under section (in Rupees) property 10 (38) of the act on (in account of Rupees) allegedly bogus long- term capital gain (in Rupees) 2010 – 11 78,96,470 203,727 198,000 82,98,197 2011 – 12 87,34

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

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

house under section (in Rupees) property 10 (38) of the act on (in account of Rupees) allegedly bogus long- term capital gain (in Rupees) 2010 – 11 78,96,470 203,727 198,000 82,98,197 2011 – 12 87,34

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

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

house under section (in Rupees) property 10 (38) of the act on (in account of Rupees) allegedly bogus long- term capital gain (in Rupees) 2010 – 11 78,96,470 203,727 198,000 82,98,197 2011 – 12 87,34

MRS ALKA PANDEY,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -25(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Mrs. Alka Pandey, Asst. Cit-25(2), Maitri – Plot No. 10, Jvpd Scheme, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Vs. Vile Parle (West), Bandra (East), Mumbai-400049. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Agepp 1076 H Appellant Respondent

34 comprising of copy of the leave and license agreements for building and for building and utilities /amenities. 4. As far as ground No. 1 of the appeal As far as ground No. 1 of the appeal is concerned, is concerned, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee did not wish to counsel for the assessee submitted that

H & M HOUSING FINANCE AND LEASING PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, ground No. 1 and 2 of the assessee‟s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanassessment Year : 2017-18 H&M Housing Finance & Deputy Commissioner Of Leasing Private Limited, Income Tax, C/62, 9Th Floor, Vibgyor Towers, Vs. Circle–7(1)(2), Bandra Kurla Complex, Aayakar Bhavan, Bandra (East), M.K.Road, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400020. Pan : Aabch4398E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nitesh Joshi & Shri Nishith Khatri Revenue By : Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr.Dr

section 9 and taxed accordingly”. This judgment, supported by earlier cases like United 7 Commercial Bank Ltd. vs. CIT (32 ITR 688) and others, and aligns with rulings from House of Lords in the case of Fry v. Salisbury House Estates Co. Ltd. (1930) AC 432 and Hon‟ble Calcutta High Court in Commercial Properties Limited

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

Section under which order Date of order is passed 1 2016-17 143(3) 26.12.2018 2 2017-18 143(3) 21.12.2019 3 2018-19 143(3) 21.06.2021 4 2019-20 143(1) 28.03.2021 5 2020-21 143(3) 22.09.2022 6 2021-22 143(1) 07.03.2023 We considering the facts, circumstances and submissions as discussed in the above paragraphs observe that

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

Section under which order Date of order is passed 1 2016-17 143(3) 26.12.2018 2 2017-18 143(3) 21.12.2019 3 2018-19 143(3) 21.06.2021 4 2019-20 143(1) 28.03.2021 5 2020-21 143(3) 22.09.2022 6 2021-22 143(1) 07.03.2023 We considering the facts, circumstances and submissions as discussed in the above paragraphs observe that

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

Section under which order Date of order is passed 1 2016-17 143(3) 26.12.2018 2 2017-18 143(3) 21.12.2019 3 2018-19 143(3) 21.06.2021 4 2019-20 143(1) 28.03.2021 5 2020-21 143(3) 22.09.2022 6 2021-22 143(1) 07.03.2023 We considering the facts, circumstances and submissions as discussed in the above paragraphs observe that

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

Section under which order Date of order is passed 1 2016-17 143(3) 26.12.2018 2 2017-18 143(3) 21.12.2019 3 2018-19 143(3) 21.06.2021 4 2019-20 143(1) 28.03.2021 5 2020-21 143(3) 22.09.2022 6 2021-22 143(1) 07.03.2023 We considering the facts, circumstances and submissions as discussed in the above paragraphs observe that

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

Section under which order Date of order is passed 1 2016-17 143(3) 26.12.2018 2 2017-18 143(3) 21.12.2019 3 2018-19 143(3) 21.06.2021 4 2019-20 143(1) 28.03.2021 5 2020-21 143(3) 22.09.2022 6 2021-22 143(1) 07.03.2023 We considering the facts, circumstances and submissions as discussed in the above paragraphs observe that

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

Section under which order Date of order is passed 1 2016-17 143(3) 26.12.2018 2 2017-18 143(3) 21.12.2019 3 2018-19 143(3) 21.06.2021 4 2019-20 143(1) 28.03.2021 5 2020-21 143(3) 22.09.2022 6 2021-22 143(1) 07.03.2023 We considering the facts, circumstances and submissions as discussed in the above paragraphs observe that

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

Section under which order Date of order is passed 1 2016-17 143(3) 26.12.2018 2 2017-18 143(3) 21.12.2019 3 2018-19 143(3) 21.06.2021 4 2019-20 143(1) 28.03.2021 5 2020-21 143(3) 22.09.2022 6 2021-22 143(1) 07.03.2023 We considering the facts, circumstances and submissions as discussed in the above paragraphs observe that

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

Section 24\nDeduction u/s 24(a) @ 30% NVA (Standard deduction)\nDeduction u/s\nborrowed\n24(b) on account of interest on\nAmount\nXXXX\nXXXX\nXXXX\nXXXX\nXXXX\nIncome from house property\nXXXX\n11. The Ld.AR explained that the revenue authorities has\naccepted the method of offering of rental income for the\nA.Y.2016-17 to A.Y.2021-22, where the assessee has offered\nrental income

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

In the result, the\nappeal filed by the revenue is dismissed\n35

Section 24\nDeduction u/s 24(a) @ 30% NVA (Standard deduction)\nXXXX\nDeduction\nborrowed\nu/s\n24(b) on account of interest on XXXX\nIncome from house property\nXXXX\n11. The Ld.AR explained that the revenue authorities has\naccepted the method of offering of rental income for the\nA.Y.2016-17 to A.Y.2021-22, where the assessee has offered\nrental income under the income from

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals filed\nby the revenue are dismissed

Section 24\nDeduction u/s 24(a) @ 30% NVA (Standard deduction)\nXXXX\nDeduction\nu/s\n24(b) on account of interest on XXXX\nborrowed\nXXXX\nIncome from house property\nXXXX\n11. The Ld.AR explained that the revenue authorities has\naccepted the method of offering of rental income for the\nA.Y.2016-17 to A.Y.2021-22, where the assessee has offered\nrental income under the income