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

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

section 24(a) of the Act. The contention of the AO that the\nassessee is carrying out an organized activity of development and\nconstruction of godowns which are held as stock-in-trade and thus, the\nrental income generated in the course of the business has to be taxed as\nbusiness income and not as income from house property

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

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

section 24(a) of the Act. The contention of the AO that the\nassessee is carrying out an organized activity of development and\nconstruction of godowns which are held as stock-in-trade and thus, the\nrental income generated in the course of the business has to be taxed as\nbusiness income and not as income from house property

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

section 143 (2) was issued on 24/1/2017. During the year a) Assessee was found to be owner of five properties for which no income was offered; therefore, the learned assessing officer estimated an income of ₹ 504,475/– as its income under the head income from property. (1) property is 39/103 at FAM cooperative housing society, the income from property

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

section 143 (2) was issued on 24/1/2017. During the year a) Assessee was found to be owner of five properties for which no income was offered; therefore, the learned assessing officer estimated an income of ₹ 504,475/– as its income under the head income from property. (1) property is 39/103 at FAM cooperative housing society, the income from property

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

section 143 (2) was issued on 24/1/2017. During the year a) Assessee was found to be owner of five properties for which no income was offered; therefore, the learned assessing officer estimated an income of ₹ 504,475/– as its income under the head income from property. (1) property is 39/103 at FAM cooperative housing society, the income from property

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

section 143 (2) was issued on 24/1/2017. During the year a) Assessee was found to be owner of five properties for which no income was offered; therefore, the learned assessing officer estimated an income of ₹ 504,475/– as its income under the head income from property. (1) property is 39/103 at FAM cooperative housing society, the income from property

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

section 143 (2) was issued on 24/1/2017. During the year a) Assessee was found to be owner of five properties for which no income was offered; therefore, the learned assessing officer estimated an income of ₹ 504,475/– as its income under the head income from property. (1) property is 39/103 at FAM cooperative housing society, the income from property

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

section 143 (2) was issued on 24/1/2017. During the year a) Assessee was found to be owner of five properties for which no income was offered; therefore, the learned assessing officer estimated an income of ₹ 504,475/– as its income under the head income from property. (1) property is 39/103 at FAM cooperative housing society, the income from property

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

section 143 (2) was issued on 24/1/2017. During the year a) Assessee was found to be owner of five properties for which no income was offered; therefore, the learned assessing officer estimated an income of ₹ 504,475/– as its income under the head income from property. (1) property is 39/103 at FAM cooperative housing society, the income from property

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’ and not under the head ‘profit and gains or b ‘profit and gains or business or profession’. Accordingly, usiness or profession’. Accordingly, the depreciation on corresponding part of building on corresponding part of building claimed claimed by the assessee is also liable to be disallowed under the head ‘profit and is also liable to be disallowed under

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’ and not under the head ‘profit and gains or b ‘profit and gains or business or profession’. Accordingly, usiness or profession’. Accordingly, the depreciation on corresponding part of building on corresponding part of building claimed claimed by the assessee is also liable to be disallowed under the head ‘profit and is also liable to be disallowed under

MODERN ABODES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 12(3)(4) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blemodern Abodes Pvt. Ltd., V. Income Tax Officer – 12(3)(4) C/O. Gulabani & Co. Room No. 148, Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 506, 5Th Floor Shree Prasad House 35Th Road, Off. Linking Road Bandra (W), Mumbai - 400050 Pan: Aagcm1595B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Ms. Neelam Jadhav Shri Ashish Kumar Deharia Department Represented By :

section 23(5) from assessment year 2018-19. Hence, the direction given to take ALV is not valid in law and may be deleted. Without Prejudice to the above, "On Merits" II. No estimate addition of Rs.60.000/- for Property No. 1 under the head Income from House Property 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in directing to estimate notional rental

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, Income from other sources and capital gain. During the impugned assessment year, the assessee sold 3 (three) residential houses and sale of shares of Perlin Cosmeceuticals Pvt Ltd. The assessee earned capital gain of Rs.14,83,09,386/- on account of sale of share and Rs.2,21,37,945/- on account of sale of residential house which works

SARITA SUNIL MANTRI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for stati...

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sarita Sunil Mantri, Ito-7(2)(1), Flat 3 & 4, Kamal Building, Aayakar Bhavan, 69 Walkeshwar Road, Opp. Vs. Mumbai-400020. Gopi Birla School, Walkeshwar, Mumbai-400006. Pan No. Adxpm 8070 E Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Abhishek Jhunjhunwala, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Aditya Rai, Dr : Date Of Hearing 17/01/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 19/01/2023

83,140/- on estimating the fair rent on flat no. 1606 and on estimating the fair rent on flat no. 1606 and 305 @ 7% of cost of property; 305 @ 7% of cost of property; 1.1 The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that the The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that

ACIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. GENTEX MERCHANTS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

Appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

83,29,125/- works out to Rs.7,68,32,912/- which the Ld. AO held to be the annual value of the house property instead of the rent received by the appellant company. This issue is no longer resintegra as it has been raised in the case of the appellant in the assessment year 2010-11. The Ld. CIT (Appeals

KENNETH M. MISQUITTA ,MUMBAI vs. ITO, 25(2)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

83,500/- made by the AO u/s. 50C 2 Kenneth M. Misquitta 1.1) The Learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the AO was justified in Considering the market value at Rs. 2,01,57,500/- as against the value of Rs. 1,96,07,000/- adopted by the appellant. 1.2) The Learned CIT(A) ought to have held that

DCIT-CC-5(4), MUMBAI vs. RAGHULEELA ESTATES PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

section 24(b) of the Act on the ground that preconstruction interest shall be allowed only to the extent of the cost of the property which is finally acquired/constructed. Your Appellant submits that on the facts of the case the preconstruction interest has been rightly claimed by the Appellant, being one-fifth of the interest paid on funds utilized