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

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

property’. [CIT\nv Ansal Housing Finance & Leasing Co. Ltd (2016) 72 Taxman.com 254].\nThus, the AO is not justified in treating the rental receipts of Rs.\n3,70,00,453/- as business receipts and deny the Appellant standard\ndeduction amounting to Rs.1,10,35,995/- allowable under section 24(a)\nof the Act.\n12.ITA 3397/MUM/2024

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

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

property’. [CIT\nv Ansal Housing Finance & Leasing Co. Ltd (2016) 72 Taxman.com 254].\nThus, the AO is not justified in treating the rental receipts of Rs.\n3,70,00,453/- as business receipts and deny the Appellant standard\ndeduction amounting to Rs.1,10,35,995/- allowable under section 24(a)\nof the Act.\n12.ITA 3397/MUM/2024

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

House Property' and the balance amount of Rs. 9.49 crs. has not at all been claimed as a deduction, therefore, the action of the AO of making a disallowance out of interest expenditure u/s. 14A r.w.r. 8D(2)(ii) of Rs. 7,87,40,362/- is grossly incorrect. 6.2 The contentions of the assessee have been duly considered

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

89,000/-, gain on sale of shares/mutual funds of Rs.38,98,794/- and share of profit from firm of Rs.34,086/-, which is evident from page 54 of the profit and loss account and page 66 being the schedule of other income. Therefore, as per the object of the assessee in the MOA, it is carrying on the activity

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 ()

section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Income tax Rules, 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Income tax Rules, 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Income tax Rules, 1962; on account of expenses pertaining to exempt 1962; on account of expenses pertaining to exempt 1962; on account

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 ()

section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Income tax Rules, 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Income tax Rules, 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Income tax Rules, 1962; on account of expenses pertaining to exempt 1962; on account of expenses pertaining to exempt 1962; on account

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

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

89 Taxman.com 444 {ITAT} {Mum} vi. Jitendra J Mehta 104 taxmann.com 449 [SC] 020. Even on the merits of the addition, he submitted that assessee is owner of three properties out of which two properties were self-occupied. The remaining premises remained vacant and same were held for letting out or sale and could not be let out during

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

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

89 Taxman.com 444 {ITAT} {Mum} vi. Jitendra J Mehta 104 taxmann.com 449 [SC] 020. Even on the merits of the addition, he submitted that assessee is owner of three properties out of which two properties were self-occupied. The remaining premises remained vacant and same were held for letting out or sale and could not be let out during

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

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

89 Taxman.com 444 {ITAT} {Mum} vi. Jitendra J Mehta 104 taxmann.com 449 [SC] 020. Even on the merits of the addition, he submitted that assessee is owner of three properties out of which two properties were self-occupied. The remaining premises remained vacant and same were held for letting out or sale and could not be let out during

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

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

89 Taxman.com 444 {ITAT} {Mum} vi. Jitendra J Mehta 104 taxmann.com 449 [SC] 020. Even on the merits of the addition, he submitted that assessee is owner of three properties out of which two properties were self-occupied. The remaining premises remained vacant and same were held for letting out or sale and could not be let out during

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

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

89 Taxman.com 444 {ITAT} {Mum} vi. Jitendra J Mehta 104 taxmann.com 449 [SC] 020. Even on the merits of the addition, he submitted that assessee is owner of three properties out of which two properties were self-occupied. The remaining premises remained vacant and same were held for letting out or sale and could not be let out during