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 income. I.T.A. No 346/Mum/2019 in Arihant\nEstate Pvt. Ltd.6 January, 2021,\n\"2. The brief facts of the case are, assessee is engaged in the business of\nconstruction activity and filed its return of income on 29/09/2014 for\n assessment year 2014-15 declaring total income of Rs.4,65,800/-.\nSubsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under

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 income. I.T.A. No 346/Mum/2019 in Arihant\nEstate Pvt. Ltd.6 January, 2021,\n"2. The brief facts of the case are, assessee is engaged in the business of\nconstruction activity and filed its return of income on 29/09/2014 for\n assessment year 2014-15 declaring total income of Rs.4,65,800/-.\nSubsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under

JIOSTAR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 16 (1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal (V.P.), Shri Aby T. Varkey (J.M.) & Shri Prashant Maharishi (A.M.) आयकर अपील सं. / Ita. No.7872/Mum/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16

House, Urmi Estate, Vs. Mumbai 95 Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai 400 013 Maharashtra PAN : AAACN1335Q Appellant Respondent Assessee by Shri Porus Kaka, Senior Advocate and Shri Divesh Chawla, Advocate Revenue by Shri Vinod Tanwani Date of hearing 09-05-2023 Date of pronouncement 05-06-2023 आदेश / ORDER PER R.S. SYAL, VP : The Hon’ble President

THOMAS COOK (INDIA) LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/ JT/ DY/CIT/ASSTT/ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Ble

Transfer Pricing Officer and observations of Ld.DRP at Page No. 89 to 93 of the Ld. DRP Order and he also objected to the recharacterizing of the transaction as deemed loan by the tax authorities. He also brought to our notice Page No. 109 of the Ld. DRP order and their conclusions. 17. Ld.AR of the assessee basically objected that

MR. MEHUL HARISH NISAR,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-CIRCLE20(2),, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mr. Mehul Nisar, Acit-Circle-20(2), Amrut Tower, 247, Telang Road, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Matunga, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400019. Pan No. Aadpn 9622 Q Appellant Respondent

price of the property. However, while sale all four parties agreed for equal property. However, while sale all four parties agreed for equal property. However, while sale all four parties agreed for equal division of the sale consideration. Therefore, both the sale division of the sale consideration. Therefore, both the sale division of the sale consideration. Therefore, both the sale

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. ii. With respect to the deduction of Municipal taxes, there is no requirement for reducing the income of the assessee where the learned assessing officer has estimated the percentage of the cost of the equity as rate of return on the investment. In fact, the deduction of municipal taxes is inbuilt in the taxability of 5% estimated

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. ii. With respect to the deduction of Municipal taxes, there is no requirement for reducing the income of the assessee where the learned assessing officer has estimated the percentage of the cost of the equity as rate of return on the investment. In fact, the deduction of municipal taxes is inbuilt in the taxability of 5% estimated

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. ii. With respect to the deduction of Municipal taxes, there is no requirement for reducing the income of the assessee where the learned assessing officer has estimated the percentage of the cost of the equity as rate of return on the investment. In fact, the deduction of municipal taxes is inbuilt in the taxability of 5% estimated

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. ii. With respect to the deduction of Municipal taxes, there is no requirement for reducing the income of the assessee where the learned assessing officer has estimated the percentage of the cost of the equity as rate of return on the investment. In fact, the deduction of municipal taxes is inbuilt in the taxability of 5% estimated

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. ii. With respect to the deduction of Municipal taxes, there is no requirement for reducing the income of the assessee where the learned assessing officer has estimated the percentage of the cost of the equity as rate of return on the investment. In fact, the deduction of municipal taxes is inbuilt in the taxability of 5% estimated

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. ii. With respect to the deduction of Municipal taxes, there is no requirement for reducing the income of the assessee where the learned assessing officer has estimated the percentage of the cost of the equity as rate of return on the investment. In fact, the deduction of municipal taxes is inbuilt in the taxability of 5% estimated

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. ii. With respect to the deduction of Municipal taxes, there is no requirement for reducing the income of the assessee where the learned assessing officer has estimated the percentage of the cost of the equity as rate of return on the investment. In fact, the deduction of municipal taxes is inbuilt in the taxability of 5% estimated

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

House property admittedly purchased by the assessee\nwas not registered with the sub-registrar till 25 11.2017 and\nhence said property was not legally transferred to the assessee,\nwithout appreciating the legal position u/s. 54 of \"the act\" as held\nby the various courts that what is important is \"Purchase\" of and\n\"utilization\" of capital gain for payment

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

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

transfer of case in the same city, locality or place, it does not require an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. In view of these facts, we do not find any infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, ground number 3 of the appeal is dismissed. 033. Ground number 4 of the appeal, assessee argues that

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

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

transfer of case in the same city, locality or place, it does not require an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. In view of these facts, we do not find any infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, ground number 3 of the appeal is dismissed. 033. Ground number 4 of the appeal, assessee argues that

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

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

transfer of case in the same city, locality or place, it does not require an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. In view of these facts, we do not find any infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, ground number 3 of the appeal is dismissed. 033. Ground number 4 of the appeal, assessee argues that

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

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

transfer of case in the same city, locality or place, it does not require an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. In view of these facts, we do not find any infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, ground number 3 of the appeal is dismissed. 033. Ground number 4 of the appeal, assessee argues that

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

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

transfer of case in the same city, locality or place, it does not require an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. In view of these facts, we do not find any infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, ground number 3 of the appeal is dismissed. 033. Ground number 4 of the appeal, assessee argues that