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

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

house property’. [CIT v Ansal\nHousing Finance & Leasing Co. Ltd (2016) 72 Taxman.com 254]. Thus,\nthe AO is not justified in treating the rental receipts of Rs.3,95,73,709/-\nas business receipts and deny the Appellant standard deduction\namounting to Rs.1,18,06,775/- allowable under section 24(a) of the Act.\n13. ITA 3398/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

house property’. [CIT v Ansal\nHousing Finance & Leasing Co. Ltd (2016) 72 Taxman.com 254]. Thus,\nthe AO is not justified in treating the rental receipts of Rs.3,95,73,709/-\nas business receipts and deny the Appellant standard deduction\namounting to Rs.1,18,06,775/- allowable under section 24(a) of the Act.\n13. ITA 3398/MUM/2024

THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

house property income and were accordingly disallowed under each of the above heads except the disallowance under the head repairs and maintenance where in the A.O allocated only 10% of the expenses as relatable to business on the ground that the office space is only 10%of the total area and accordingly 90% of the expenses is disallowed being attributable

THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

house property income and were accordingly disallowed under each of the above heads except the disallowance under the head repairs and maintenance where in the A.O allocated only 10% of the expenses as relatable to business on the ground that the office space is only 10%of the total area and accordingly 90% of the expenses is disallowed being attributable

THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

house property income and were accordingly disallowed under each of the above heads except the disallowance under the head repairs and maintenance where in the A.O allocated only 10% of the expenses as relatable to business on the ground that the office space is only 10%of the total area and accordingly 90% of the expenses is disallowed being attributable

THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

house property income and were accordingly disallowed under each of the above heads except the disallowance under the head repairs and maintenance where in the A.O allocated only 10% of the expenses as relatable to business on the ground that the office space is only 10%of the total area and accordingly 90% of the expenses is disallowed being attributable

ASST CIT CC 8(4), MUMBAI vs. PHOENIX MILLS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

house property income and were accordingly disallowed under each of the above heads except the disallowance under the head repairs and maintenance where in the A.O allocated only 10% of the expenses as relatable to business on the ground that the office space is only 10%of the total area and accordingly 90% of the expenses is disallowed being attributable

THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

house property income and were accordingly disallowed under each of the above heads except the disallowance under the head repairs and maintenance where in the A.O allocated only 10% of the expenses as relatable to business on the ground that the office space is only 10%of the total area and accordingly 90% of the expenses is disallowed being attributable

THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

house property income and were accordingly disallowed under each of the above heads except the disallowance under the head repairs and maintenance where in the A.O allocated only 10% of the expenses as relatable to business on the ground that the office space is only 10%of the total area and accordingly 90% of the expenses is disallowed being attributable

THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

house property income and were accordingly disallowed under each of the above heads except the disallowance under the head repairs and maintenance where in the A.O allocated only 10% of the expenses as relatable to business on the ground that the office space is only 10%of the total area and accordingly 90% of the expenses is disallowed being attributable

ASST CIT CC 8(4), MUMBAI vs. PHOENIX MILLS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

house property income and were accordingly disallowed under each of the above heads except the disallowance under the head repairs and maintenance where in the A.O allocated only 10% of the expenses as relatable to business on the ground that the office space is only 10%of the total area and accordingly 90% of the expenses is disallowed being attributable

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

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 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. 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