CHERYL OSCAR PEREIRA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 13(1)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal

property referred to in sub-section (2) consists of more than one residential houses, exemption would be available only in respect of one house and other self-occupied residential houses will be treated as let out. There is no such provision in section 54

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, disallowance of exemption under section 10 (38) of the act and addition on account of undisclosed income. 014. Assessment proceedings can be summarized as under:- Assessment Date of Returned Return Income Income year filing of income filed returned assessed as return of under under per (in Rupees) income section section assessment under 153A of 153A of the order

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, disallowance of exemption under section 10 (38) of the act and addition on account of undisclosed income. 014. Assessment proceedings can be summarized as under:- Assessment Date of Returned Return Income Income year filing of income filed returned assessed as return of under under per (in Rupees) income section section assessment under 153A of 153A of the order

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, disallowance of exemption under section 10 (38) of the act and addition on account of undisclosed income. 014. Assessment proceedings can be summarized as under:- Assessment Date of Returned Return Income Income year filing of income filed returned assessed as return of under under per (in Rupees) income section section assessment under 153A of 153A of the order

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, disallowance of exemption under section 10 (38) of the act and addition on account of undisclosed income. 014. Assessment proceedings can be summarized as under:- Assessment Date of Returned Return Income Income year filing of income filed returned assessed as return of under under per (in Rupees) income section section assessment under 153A of 153A of the order

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, disallowance of exemption under section 10 (38) of the act and addition on account of undisclosed income. 014. Assessment proceedings can be summarized as under:- Assessment Date of Returned Return Income Income year filing of income filed returned assessed as return of under under per (in Rupees) income section section assessment under 153A of 153A of the order

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, disallowance of exemption under section 10 (38) of the act and addition on account of undisclosed income. 014. Assessment proceedings can be summarized as under:- Assessment Date of Returned Return Income Income year filing of income filed returned assessed as return of under under per (in Rupees) income section section assessment under 153A of 153A of the order

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, disallowance of exemption under section 10 (38) of the act and addition on account of undisclosed income. 014. Assessment proceedings can be summarized as under:- Assessment Date of Returned Return Income Income year filing of income filed returned assessed as return of under under per (in Rupees) income section section assessment under 153A of 153A of the order

RANI JAGDISH SAHDEVAN,MUMBAI vs. ITO 25 (3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid findings

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Gagan Goyal

section 54(2) of the Act the net sale consideration which is not utilised for acquisition of a residential house property

DCIT(E)-2(1), MUMBAI vs. NEHRU CENTRE, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Bledcit (E) – 2(1) V. Nehru Centre Room No. 519, 5Th Floor Discovery Of India Building Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug 13Th Floor, Dr. Annie Besant Road Worli, Mumbai - 400018 Mumbai – 400 012 Pan: Aaatn2536J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dilip Thakkar Department By : Shri Dilipkumar Shah

54,300 At the most as General Public Not incidental as hall was for providing auditorium utility. It is in the nature of used by outside agencies for for various outsiders business and rendering 250 times while for assesses programs like services to trade, commerce own programs it was used for conferences, meetings, of parties. Hit by first proviso only

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

house property, capital gains and business of supply of goods and services is not exempt to the extent provided in section 10(20) of the |. T. Act. While deciding the issue the decision delivered in the case of Calcutta State Transport Corporation vs. CIT 1996 (219 ITR 515) (SC) and CIT vs. U.P. Forest Corporation

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

house property, capital gains and business of supply of goods and services is not exempt to the extent provided in section 10(20) of the |. T. Act. While deciding the issue the decision delivered in the case of Calcutta State Transport Corporation vs. CIT 1996 (219 ITR 515) (SC) and CIT vs. U.P. Forest Corporation

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

house property, capital gains and business of supply of goods and services is not exempt to the extent provided in section 10(20) of the |. T. Act. While deciding the issue the decision delivered in the case of Calcutta State Transport Corporation vs. CIT 1996 (219 ITR 515) (SC) and CIT vs. U.P. Forest Corporation

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

house property, capital gains and business of supply of goods and services is not exempt to the extent provided in section 10(20) of the |. T. Act. While deciding the issue the decision delivered in the case of Calcutta State Transport Corporation vs. CIT 1996 (219 ITR 515) (SC) and CIT vs. U.P. Forest Corporation

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

house property, capital gains and business of supply of goods and services is not exempt to the extent provided in section 10(20) of the |. T. Act. While deciding the issue the decision delivered in the case of Calcutta State Transport Corporation vs. CIT 1996 (219 ITR 515) (SC) and CIT vs. U.P. Forest Corporation

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

property referred to in sub-section (2) section (2) consists of mor consists of more than 54[two houses]— (a) the provisions

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

54 F of the Act by holding that assessee was holding only one residential house property on the date of transfer of original asset Smt. Punita Sanjay Bindra. 2 Smt. Punita Sanjay Bindra ITA No. whereas assessee was whereas assessee was owning two house properties on the owning two house properties on the date of sale of shares? date

DEEPANKAR MOGHA,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISATNT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 17(1) , MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara (Jm) & Shri Girish Agrawal (Am)

54 or u/s 54F. Ground No. 2 stand dismissed." 7.4 Following the decisions of the Jurisdictional Tribunal in the above cases it is held that purchase of tenancy rights does not qualify as purchase of a residential house property within the meaning of section