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

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

property" and citing several Supreme\nCourt decisions. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating\nthat the principles of consistency should apply. It noted that in previous\nyears, the Revenue had accepted this income as “income from house\nproperty" without any material change in circumstances.\n9. In view of the detailed discussion in preceding paras, we hold\nthat there

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

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

property" and citing several Supreme\nCourt decisions. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating\nthat the principles of consistency should apply. It noted that in previous\nyears, the Revenue had accepted this income as “income from house\nproperty" without any material change in circumstances.\n9. In view of the detailed discussion in preceding paras, we hold\nthat there

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 property. He submits that whether the property is acquired from known sources or not is not relevant for taxation u/s 22 of the Act. Had those properties found unaccounted those additions would have been under other sections. b) With respect to addition in case of long-term capital gain exemption u/s 10 (38) of the Act, he submits that

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 property. He submits that whether the property is acquired from known sources or not is not relevant for taxation u/s 22 of the Act. Had those properties found unaccounted those additions would have been under other sections. b) With respect to addition in case of long-term capital gain exemption u/s 10 (38) of the Act, he submits that

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 property. He submits that whether the property is acquired from known sources or not is not relevant for taxation u/s 22 of the Act. Had those properties found unaccounted those additions would have been under other sections. b) With respect to addition in case of long-term capital gain exemption u/s 10 (38) of the Act, he submits that

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 property. He submits that whether the property is acquired from known sources or not is not relevant for taxation u/s 22 of the Act. Had those properties found unaccounted those additions would have been under other sections. b) With respect to addition in case of long-term capital gain exemption u/s 10 (38) of the Act, he submits that

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 property. He submits that whether the property is acquired from known sources or not is not relevant for taxation u/s 22 of the Act. Had those properties found unaccounted those additions would have been under other sections. b) With respect to addition in case of long-term capital gain exemption u/s 10 (38) of the Act, he submits that

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 property. He submits that whether the property is acquired from known sources or not is not relevant for taxation u/s 22 of the Act. Had those properties found unaccounted those additions would have been under other sections. b) With respect to addition in case of long-term capital gain exemption u/s 10 (38) of the Act, he submits that

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 property. He submits that whether the property is acquired from known sources or not is not relevant for taxation u/s 22 of the Act. Had those properties found unaccounted those additions would have been under other sections. b) With respect to addition in case of long-term capital gain exemption u/s 10 (38) of the Act, he submits that

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4) , MUMBAI vs. RUSTOMJEE EVERSHINE JOINT VENTURE , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue for AY 2013-14 &

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1349/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit, Central Circle-2(4) बिधम/ Rustomjee Evershine Room No. 802, 8Th Floor, Joint Venture Vs. Prathishtha Bhavan, M. K. Global City, Narangi Road, Churchgate, Mumbai- Bypass Road, Close To 400020. Viva College, Virar (W), Virar-401303. Cross Objection No. 27/Mum/2023 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.1349/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Rustomjee Evershine Joint बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-2(4) Room No. 802, 8Th Floor, Venture Vs. Global City, Narangi Prathishtha Bhavan, M. K. Bypass Road, Close To Viva Road, Churchgate, College, Virar (W), Virar- Mumbai-400020. 401303. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.1824 & 1825/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2014-15) Dcit, Central Circle-2(4) बिधम/ Rustomjee Evershine Room No. 802, 8Th Floor, Joint Venture Vs. Prathishtha Bhavan, M. K. Global City, Narangi Road, Churchgate, Mumbai- Bypass Road, Close To 400020. Viva College, Virar (W), Virar-401303. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaar7687M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Naresh Kumar Revenue By: Shri P. D. Chougule (Addl. Cit) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 25/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/07/2023

Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 regarding the claim of the expenses in relation to income offered in that particular year. Therefore from this angle as well this expenditure is allowable. 6.13 The Ld. AR in this regard has relied upon various case laws which are discussed as under: 6.14 In the case of CIT V. Salora

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(4), MUMBAI vs. RUSTOMJI EVERSHINE JOINT VENTURE, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue for AY 2013-14 &

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1349/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit, Central Circle-2(4) बिधम/ Rustomjee Evershine Room No. 802, 8Th Floor, Joint Venture Vs. Prathishtha Bhavan, M. K. Global City, Narangi Road, Churchgate, Mumbai- Bypass Road, Close To 400020. Viva College, Virar (W), Virar-401303. Cross Objection No. 27/Mum/2023 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.1349/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Rustomjee Evershine Joint बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-2(4) Room No. 802, 8Th Floor, Venture Vs. Global City, Narangi Prathishtha Bhavan, M. K. Bypass Road, Close To Viva Road, Churchgate, College, Virar (W), Virar- Mumbai-400020. 401303. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.1824 & 1825/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2014-15) Dcit, Central Circle-2(4) बिधम/ Rustomjee Evershine Room No. 802, 8Th Floor, Joint Venture Vs. Prathishtha Bhavan, M. K. Global City, Narangi Road, Churchgate, Mumbai- Bypass Road, Close To 400020. Viva College, Virar (W), Virar-401303. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaar7687M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Naresh Kumar Revenue By: Shri P. D. Chougule (Addl. Cit) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 25/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/07/2023

Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 regarding the claim of the expenses in relation to income offered in that particular year. Therefore from this angle as well this expenditure is allowable. 6.13 The Ld. AR in this regard has relied upon various case laws which are discussed as under: 6.14 In the case of CIT V. Salora

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4) , MUMBAI vs. RUSTOMJEE EVERSHINE JOINT VENTURE , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue for AY 2013-14 &

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1349/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit, Central Circle-2(4) बिधम/ Rustomjee Evershine Room No. 802, 8Th Floor, Joint Venture Vs. Prathishtha Bhavan, M. K. Global City, Narangi Road, Churchgate, Mumbai- Bypass Road, Close To 400020. Viva College, Virar (W), Virar-401303. Cross Objection No. 27/Mum/2023 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.1349/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Rustomjee Evershine Joint बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-2(4) Room No. 802, 8Th Floor, Venture Vs. Global City, Narangi Prathishtha Bhavan, M. K. Bypass Road, Close To Viva Road, Churchgate, College, Virar (W), Virar- Mumbai-400020. 401303. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.1824 & 1825/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2014-15) Dcit, Central Circle-2(4) बिधम/ Rustomjee Evershine Room No. 802, 8Th Floor, Joint Venture Vs. Prathishtha Bhavan, M. K. Global City, Narangi Road, Churchgate, Mumbai- Bypass Road, Close To 400020. Viva College, Virar (W), Virar-401303. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaar7687M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Naresh Kumar Revenue By: Shri P. D. Chougule (Addl. Cit) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 25/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/07/2023

Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 regarding the claim of the expenses in relation to income offered in that particular year. Therefore from this angle as well this expenditure is allowable. 6.13 The Ld. AR in this regard has relied upon various case laws which are discussed as under: 6.14 In the case of CIT V. Salora

DCIT CC 4(2), MUMBAI vs. ROCKFORT ESTATE DEVELOPERS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the Cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Cc-4(2) Vs M/S Rockfort Estate Room No. 1918, 19Th Developers Pvt Ltd Floor, Air India Bldg, 1,Leela Baug, Andheri – Nariman Point, Kurla, Mumbai – 400021. Mumbai – 400051. Pan/Gir No. : Aabcr7896K Appellant .. Respondent Co No. 72/Mum/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 4091/Mum/2019 A.Y 2014-15) M/S Rockfort Estate Vs Dcit, Cc-4(2) Developers Pvt Ltd Room No. 1918, 19Th 1, Leela Baug,Andheri Floor, Air India Bldg, – Kurla, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400051. Mumbai – 400021. Pan/Gir No. : Aabcr7896K Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Mr.Rahul Hakani.Ar Revenue By : Mr.S.N. Kabra.Dr Date Of Hearing 28.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25.04.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-52

section 37(1) of the Act. 4. The brief facts of the that the assessee company is engaged in the business of real-estate and has developed Leela Business Park at Andheri Kurla Road, Mumbai and the property was given on lease and the assessee receives lease/rental income and maintenance charges from various tenants. The assessee has filed the return

MODERN ABODES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 12(3)(4) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blemodern Abodes Pvt. Ltd., V. Income Tax Officer – 12(3)(4) C/O. Gulabani & Co. Room No. 148, Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 506, 5Th Floor Shree Prasad House 35Th Road, Off. Linking Road Bandra (W), Mumbai - 400050 Pan: Aagcm1595B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Ms. Neelam Jadhav Shri Ashish Kumar Deharia Department Represented By :

section 23(1) of the Act and determined the rent at 10% of the value in respect of the property and accordingly additions made. In this regard, assessee filed an objection letters dated 02.09.2016 and 21.10.2016 in which assessee submitted that till the occupation certificate is obtained, hence, assessee has not received the possession of the property, therefore no deemed

SUMAN GUPTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - CC- 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2015

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Ita Nos. 3860 & 3859/Mum/2018 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Smt. Suman Gupta, Dy. Cit Cc-4(2), 6Th New Harileela House, Air India Building, 19Th Mint Road, Fort, Vs. Floor, Room No. 1918, Mumbai-400 001. Nariman Point, Mumbai-21. Pan No. Ahqpg 0220 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Bhupendra Karkhanis & Mr. Aakash Marthak & Mr. Vijay Bhatt, Ars Revenue By : Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 02/03/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 27/04/2023 Order

section 23(1) of the Act and not as 7% of cost of 7% of cost of the properties, which is wrong and contrary to the facts the properties, which is wrong and contrary to the facts the properties, which is wrong and contrary to the facts of the case and provisions of the Income

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

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

house properties. ii. bogus unsecured loan of ₹ 40 lakhs added under section 68 of the income tax act iii. denial of exemption under section 10 (38) of the act on account of long-term capital gain on sale of shares of ₹ 61,405,822/- 066. Addition made on account of income from property of ₹ 119,718/– is on identical facts

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

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

house properties. ii. bogus unsecured loan of ₹ 40 lakhs added under section 68 of the income tax act iii. denial of exemption under section 10 (38) of the act on account of long-term capital gain on sale of shares of ₹ 61,405,822/- 066. Addition made on account of income from property of ₹ 119,718/– is on identical facts

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

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

house properties. ii. bogus unsecured loan of ₹ 40 lakhs added under section 68 of the income tax act iii. denial of exemption under section 10 (38) of the act on account of long-term capital gain on sale of shares of ₹ 61,405,822/- 066. Addition made on account of income from property of ₹ 119,718/– is on identical facts