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

THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

37,504). The revenue comprised two components namely "Rental Income" & others. The revenue from the rentals had been considered under the income from house property. The income offered under the House 29 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. property was at Rs 53.67 crores and the balance revenue of Rs. 86.98 crores from the other than rental. Thus the ratio

THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

37,504). The revenue comprised two components namely "Rental Income" & others. The revenue from the rentals had been considered under the income from house property. The income offered under the House 29 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. property was at Rs 53.67 crores and the balance revenue of Rs. 86.98 crores from the other than rental. Thus the ratio

ASST CIT CC 8(4), MUMBAI vs. PHOENIX MILLS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

37,504). The revenue comprised two components namely "Rental Income" & others. The revenue from the rentals had been considered under the income from house property. The income offered under the House 29 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. property was at Rs 53.67 crores and the balance revenue of Rs. 86.98 crores from the other than rental. Thus the ratio

THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

37,504). The revenue comprised two components namely "Rental Income" & others. The revenue from the rentals had been considered under the income from house property. The income offered under the House 29 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. property was at Rs 53.67 crores and the balance revenue of Rs. 86.98 crores from the other than rental. Thus the ratio

THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

37,504). The revenue comprised two components namely "Rental Income" & others. The revenue from the rentals had been considered under the income from house property. The income offered under the House 29 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. property was at Rs 53.67 crores and the balance revenue of Rs. 86.98 crores from the other than rental. Thus the ratio

THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

37,504). The revenue comprised two components namely "Rental Income" & others. The revenue from the rentals had been considered under the income from house property. The income offered under the House 29 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. property was at Rs 53.67 crores and the balance revenue of Rs. 86.98 crores from the other than rental. Thus the ratio

THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

37,504). The revenue comprised two components namely "Rental Income" & others. The revenue from the rentals had been considered under the income from house property. The income offered under the House 29 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. property was at Rs 53.67 crores and the balance revenue of Rs. 86.98 crores from the other than rental. Thus the ratio

ASST CIT CC 8(4), MUMBAI vs. PHOENIX MILLS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

37,504). The revenue comprised two components namely "Rental Income" & others. The revenue from the rentals had been considered under the income from house property. The income offered under the House 29 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. property was at Rs 53.67 crores and the balance revenue of Rs. 86.98 crores from the other than rental. Thus the ratio

THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

37,504). The revenue comprised two components namely "Rental Income" & others. The revenue from the rentals had been considered under the income from house property. The income offered under the House 29 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. property was at Rs 53.67 crores and the balance revenue of Rs. 86.98 crores from the other than rental. Thus the ratio

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 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 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