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 87,34,940 215,107 89,50

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 87,34,940 215,107 89,50

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 87,34,940 215,107 89,50

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 87,34,940 215,107 89,50

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 87,34,940 215,107 89,50

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 87,34,940 215,107 89,50

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 87,34,940 215,107 89,50

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

ACIT 28 (2), MUMBAI vs. SMT. PUNITA SANJAY BIDRA , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Acit-28(2), Smt. Punita Sanjay Bindra, Room No. 307, 3Rd Floor, Tower 505-506, Kesar Solitaire, 5Th Vs. No. 6, Vashi Railway Station Floor, Sanpada, Plot No. 5, Complex, Vashi, Sector-19, Navi Mumbai-400703. Navi Mumbai-400705. Pan No. Acspb 2454 M Appellant Respondent

section 54F claimed by the assessee has been summarised by the Assessing Officer been summarised by the Assessing Officer as under: as under: Smt. Punita Sanjay Bindra. 4 Smt. Punita Sanjay Bindra ITA No. Rs. Rs. Rs. Consideration received on 30.04.2011 Consideration received on 30.04.2011 6,38,97,750 Invested in house property and claimed deduction u/s Invested in house

DIRECTI INTERNET SOLUTIONS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 5(1)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

house property. The relevant provision reads reads as under: “23(1) For the purposes of section 22, the annual value of any property “23(1) For the purposes of section 22, the annual value of any property “23(1) For the purposes of section 22, the annual value of any property shall be deemed to be shall be deemed

DIRECTI INTERNET SOLUTIONS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 5(1)(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

house property. The relevant provision reads reads as under: “23(1) For the purposes of section 22, the annual value of any property “23(1) For the purposes of section 22, the annual value of any property “23(1) For the purposes of section 22, the annual value of any property shall be deemed to be shall be deemed

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 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 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

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