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 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

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

77,80,058/-, the assessee has claimed interest only of Rs. 14,46,36,399/- under the head 'House Property' u/s. 24 of the act and remaining interest has not been claimed in the computation of income and therefore, as such, no interest expenditure has been ITA No. 4091/Mum/2019 & CO No. 72/Mum/2021 Rockfort Estate Developers Pvt Ltd. claimed

SHARDA CHAMBERS PREMISE CO OP SOCIETY LTD ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, 17(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2013-14

77,284/- to be assessed under the head "Income from House Property" instead of assessed under the head "Income from House Property" instead of assessed under the head "Income from House Property" instead of "Income from other sources" particularly when the said income was "Income from other sources" particularly when the said income was "Income from other sources" particularly when

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

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

77,180 12-13 11-12 31.08.2012 14,24,850 13.01.2017 14,24,850 13-14 12-13 31.07.2013 44,85,040 12.01.2017 44,85,040 14-15 13-14 30.07.201 44,59,850 12.01.2017 44,59,850 15-16 14-15 31.08.2015 68,42,700 12.01.2017 68,42,700 16-17 15-16 30.07.2016 41,89,830 04. Pursuant

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

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

77,180 12-13 11-12 31.08.2012 14,24,850 13.01.2017 14,24,850 13-14 12-13 31.07.2013 44,85,040 12.01.2017 44,85,040 14-15 13-14 30.07.201 44,59,850 12.01.2017 44,59,850 15-16 14-15 31.08.2015 68,42,700 12.01.2017 68,42,700 16-17 15-16 30.07.2016 41,89,830 04. Pursuant

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

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

77,180 12-13 11-12 31.08.2012 14,24,850 13.01.2017 14,24,850 13-14 12-13 31.07.2013 44,85,040 12.01.2017 44,85,040 14-15 13-14 30.07.201 44,59,850 12.01.2017 44,59,850 15-16 14-15 31.08.2015 68,42,700 12.01.2017 68,42,700 16-17 15-16 30.07.2016 41,89,830 04. Pursuant

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

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

77,180 12-13 11-12 31.08.2012 14,24,850 13.01.2017 14,24,850 13-14 12-13 31.07.2013 44,85,040 12.01.2017 44,85,040 14-15 13-14 30.07.201 44,59,850 12.01.2017 44,59,850 15-16 14-15 31.08.2015 68,42,700 12.01.2017 68,42,700 16-17 15-16 30.07.2016 41,89,830 04. Pursuant

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

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

77,180 12-13 11-12 31.08.2012 14,24,850 13.01.2017 14,24,850 13-14 12-13 31.07.2013 44,85,040 12.01.2017 44,85,040 14-15 13-14 30.07.201 44,59,850 12.01.2017 44,59,850 15-16 14-15 31.08.2015 68,42,700 12.01.2017 68,42,700 16-17 15-16 30.07.2016 41,89,830 04. Pursuant

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

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

77,180 12-13 11-12 31.08.2012 14,24,850 13.01.2017 14,24,850 13-14 12-13 31.07.2013 44,85,040 12.01.2017 44,85,040 14-15 13-14 30.07.201 44,59,850 12.01.2017 44,59,850 15-16 14-15 31.08.2015 68,42,700 12.01.2017 68,42,700 16-17 15-16 30.07.2016 41,89,830 04. Pursuant

KANAKIA GRUHNIRMAN PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-10(1)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blekanakia Gruhnirman Pvt. Ltd., V. Dcit – 10(1)(2) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Kanakia Future City, Cts No. 101 Behind Dr. L. H. Hiranandani Hospital Mumbai - 400020 Near Ayyappa Temple, Tirandaz Powai, Mumbai – 400076 Pan: Aaack1572C (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 56(2)(ii) of the Act. 6. In response, assessee furnished a reply wherein it has been stated that lease rental is taxable under the head house property and not other sources and hence depreciation is allowable as a deduction. Assessing Officer verified from the details filed wherein it was found that depreciation was worked out on gross value

TARUN KUMAR RATAN SINGH RATHI,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 32(1), MUMBAI

77,500/-\nManish\nTotal\n3,41,37,000/-\nThe appellant filed its return of income declaring a total income of\nRs. 9,53,760/- after claiming an exemption u/s 54 on account of\npurchase of the new property.\n3. The appellant's case was chosen for scrutiny u/s 143(3) of the\nAct. During the course of scrutiny, the Ld.AO

SAMEER KISHORE KOTICHA,MUMBAI vs. DY.COMM OF INCOME TAX 6(1) (2) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Gagan Goyal

house shall be taken to be nil.‖ 11. Thus, from the reading of section 23(2) of the Act, it is evident that the property as referred to therein is only the residential property and the same cannot be the commercial property. In the present case, as per the agreement dated 30/12/2013, forming part of the paper book from pages

ACIT -CC- 4(2), MUMBAI vs. CHALET HOTELS LTD. (AS A SUCCESSOR TO M/S.MAGNA DISTRIBUTION & WAREHOUSING PVT. LTD.), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2505/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2507/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2510/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2511/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2513/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Acit, Central Circle-4(2) बिधम/ M/S. Chalet Hotels Ltd Room No. 1918, 19Th Floor, (As A M/S. Magna Vs. Air India Building, Nariman Distribution & Point, Mumbai-400021. Warehousing Pvt. Ltd.) Plot No. C-30 Raheja Tower, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No.Aaack0411E आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1754/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1755/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1756/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Genext Hardware & Parks बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-4(2) Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 1918, Air India Vs. Raheja Tower, Plot No. C- Building, Nariman Point, 30, Oppo. Sidbi, Bandra Mumbai-400021. Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaccg5567F

Housing & Land Development Trust's case (supra) Sultan Bros's case (supra) and Karan Pura Development Co. Ltd.'s case (supra) the levy of income tax in the case of one holding house property is premised not on whether the assessee carries on business, as landlord, but on the ownership. The incidence of charge is because of the fact

CHALET HOTELS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2505/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2507/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2510/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2511/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2513/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Acit, Central Circle-4(2) बिधम/ M/S. Chalet Hotels Ltd Room No. 1918, 19Th Floor, (As A M/S. Magna Vs. Air India Building, Nariman Distribution & Point, Mumbai-400021. Warehousing Pvt. Ltd.) Plot No. C-30 Raheja Tower, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No.Aaack0411E आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1754/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1755/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1756/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Genext Hardware & Parks बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-4(2) Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 1918, Air India Vs. Raheja Tower, Plot No. C- Building, Nariman Point, 30, Oppo. Sidbi, Bandra Mumbai-400021. Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaccg5567F

Housing & Land Development Trust's case (supra) Sultan Bros's case (supra) and Karan Pura Development Co. Ltd.'s case (supra) the levy of income tax in the case of one holding house property is premised not on whether the assessee carries on business, as landlord, but on the ownership. The incidence of charge is because of the fact