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

ICICI SECURITIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI -4, MUMBAI

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

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

House, Mumbai-4 Prabhadevi, S.O. Mumbai-400 025 PAN/GIR No.AAAC10996E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Riken Shah Revenue by Ms. Kavita Kaushik (Sr.DR) Date of Hearing 21/11/2025 Date of Pronouncement 06/01/2026 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 28.03.2025 passed by the learned Principal

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

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

1) of the IT Act.\n4. On the other hand, ld. DR relied on the order of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the\ncase of Ansal Housing Finance & Leasing Co. Ltd., 354 ITR 180 (Delhi) in support of\nthe proposition that even in respect of unsold flats by the developer is liable to be\ntaxed as income from house

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

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

1) of the IT Act.\n4. On the other hand, ld. DR relied on the order of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the\ncase of Ansal Housing Finance & Leasing Co. Ltd., 354 ITR 180 (Delhi) in support of\nthe proposition that even in respect of unsold flats by the developer is liable to be\ntaxed as income from house

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

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

1) of the IT Act.\n4. On the other hand, ld. DR relied on the order of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the\ncase of Ansal Housing Finance & Leasing Co. Ltd., 354 ITR 180 (Delhi) in support of\nthe proposition that even in respect of unsold flats by the developer is liable to be\ntaxed as income from house

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

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

1) of the IT Act.\n4. On the other hand, ld. DR relied on the order of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the\ncase of Ansal Housing Finance & Leasing Co. Ltd., 354 ITR 180 (Delhi) in support of\nthe proposition that even in respect of unsold flats by the developer is liable to be\ntaxed as income from house

SIR RATAN TATA TRUST,MUMBAI SUBURBAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in both AY 2014-15 and AY

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

House, 24, National Faceless Assessment Homi Mody Street, Fort, Centre-2(1), Vs. Mumbai-400001 MTNL Tele Building, PAN : AAATS1013P Cumballa Hills, Peddar Road, Mumbai-400026. Appellant) : Respondent) Appellant/Assessee by : Shri P. J. Pardiwala a/w Shri Sukhsagar Syal, AR Revenue/Respondent by : Shri Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 22.07.2024 Date of Pronouncement 26.08.2024 : Per Padmavathy S, AM: 1. These

SIR RATAN TATA TRUST,MUMBAI SUBURBAN vs. ADDITIONAL /JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NFAC, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in both AY 2014-15 and AY

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

House, 24, National Faceless Assessment Homi Mody Street, Fort, Centre-2(1), Vs. Mumbai-400001 MTNL Tele Building, PAN : AAATS1013P Cumballa Hills, Peddar Road, Mumbai-400026. Appellant) : Respondent) Appellant/Assessee by : Shri P. J. Pardiwala a/w Shri Sukhsagar Syal, AR Revenue/Respondent by : Shri Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 22.07.2024 Date of Pronouncement 26.08.2024 : Per Padmavathy S, AM: 1. These

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

1) property is 39/103 at FAM cooperative housing society, the income from property was estimated at ₹ 16,207/– at the rate of 5% of the total cost of property, (2) and (3) shop number 7, 10 was considered on the basis of the deemed rent offered by the assessee for assessment year 2016 – 17 at ₹ 83,306/– for each

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

1) property is 39/103 at FAM cooperative housing society, the income from property was estimated at ₹ 16,207/– at the rate of 5% of the total cost of property, (2) and (3) shop number 7, 10 was considered on the basis of the deemed rent offered by the assessee for assessment year 2016 – 17 at ₹ 83,306/– for each

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

1) property is 39/103 at FAM cooperative housing society, the income from property was estimated at ₹ 16,207/– at the rate of 5% of the total cost of property, (2) and (3) shop number 7, 10 was considered on the basis of the deemed rent offered by the assessee for assessment year 2016 – 17 at ₹ 83,306/– for each

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

1) property is 39/103 at FAM cooperative housing society, the income from property was estimated at ₹ 16,207/– at the rate of 5% of the total cost of property, (2) and (3) shop number 7, 10 was considered on the basis of the deemed rent offered by the assessee for assessment year 2016 – 17 at ₹ 83,306/– for each

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

1) property is 39/103 at FAM cooperative housing society, the income from property was estimated at ₹ 16,207/– at the rate of 5% of the total cost of property, (2) and (3) shop number 7, 10 was considered on the basis of the deemed rent offered by the assessee for assessment year 2016 – 17 at ₹ 83,306/– for each

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

1) property is 39/103 at FAM cooperative housing society, the income from property was estimated at ₹ 16,207/– at the rate of 5% of the total cost of property, (2) and (3) shop number 7, 10 was considered on the basis of the deemed rent offered by the assessee for assessment year 2016 – 17 at ₹ 83,306/– for each

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

1) property is 39/103 at FAM cooperative housing society, the income from property was estimated at ₹ 16,207/– at the rate of 5% of the total cost of property, (2) and (3) shop number 7, 10 was considered on the basis of the deemed rent offered by the assessee for assessment year 2016 – 17 at ₹ 83,306/– for each

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD)-I/C DCIT CIRCLE 8(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD, MUMBAI

Housing Development Company ltd. [2011] 45 SOT 9 (Mum) which dealt with the definition of the terms “omission”, “wrong statement” and “discover” as under:\ni. The word 'omission' would connote 'an unintentional act or neglect to perform what the law required'\nii. The words 'wrong statement' would include in their scope 'a statement which was not false to the knowledge

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-2(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

37,239 under section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Rules. 6. The learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, in principle confirmed the stand of the AO in invoking the provisions of section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Rules. However, granted partial relief to the assessee and deleted the disallowance computed under Rule

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

37,239 under section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Rules. 6. The learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, in principle confirmed the stand of the AO in invoking the provisions of section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Rules. However, granted partial relief to the assessee and deleted the disallowance computed under Rule