DCIT CEN 5 3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

section 10. the Act, including those conferring exemptions un the Act, including those conferring exemptions un Thus, the income which otherwise may be chargeable under the Thus, the income which otherwise may be chargeable under the Thus, the income which otherwise may be chargeable under the head ‘income on securities’ or ‘income from house property

DCIT CEN 5 3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

section 10. the Act, including those conferring exemptions un the Act, including those conferring exemptions un Thus, the income which otherwise may be chargeable under the Thus, the income which otherwise may be chargeable under the Thus, the income which otherwise may be chargeable under the head ‘income on securities’ or ‘income from house property

DCIT CEN 5 3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

section 10. the Act, including those conferring exemptions un the Act, including those conferring exemptions un Thus, the income which otherwise may be chargeable under the Thus, the income which otherwise may be chargeable under the Thus, the income which otherwise may be chargeable under the head ‘income on securities’ or ‘income from house property

ACIT, CENT. CIR.2, THANE vs. SAI HOME MAKERS, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, assessee‟s appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

Properties, [2013] 353 ITR 36 (Bom.), the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court held that housing project comprises of several independent buildings consisting of several residential units. Therefore, even if one of the building in a housing project comprising of several residential units satisfies the conditions of section 80IB(10

JM FINANCIAL INDIA FUND-SCHEME B,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 17(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result this ground of appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhjm Financial India Fund-Scheme Ito - 17(2)(1) Room No. 123-B, 1St Floor, B, 141, Maker Chambers Iii, Nariman Point, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400020. Pan: Aabtj0401F Appellant Respondent

Property Fund Versus ITO (supra) on similar set of facts on similar denial of exemption under section 10(23FB) passed the following order: “12. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. Ostensibly, as our discussion in the earlier paras show, the sum and substance of the stand of Assessing Officer revolves around the manner in which assessee has made certain

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

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

houses and let them to tenants and whose sole business was\nmanagement and collection of rents from the said properties, was held\nassessable under Section 9 and not under Section 10

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

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

houses and let them to tenants and whose sole business was\nmanagement and collection of rents from the said properties, was held\nassessable under Section 9 and not under Section 10

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

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

houses and let them to tenants and whose sole business was\nmanagement and collection of rents from the said properties, was held\nassessable under Section 9 and not under Section 10

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

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

houses and let them to tenants and whose sole business was\nmanagement and collection of rents from the said properties, was held\nassessable under Section 9 and not under Section 10

ASST CIT CIR 2, THANE vs. ASHISH CONSTRUCTION CO., THANE

In the result, the common question of law framed in these two appeals are answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2006 - 2007 Asst. Cit Circle-2, Ashish Construction Co., Thane S-1, Narmada Apartments, बनाम/ Cabin Road, Bhayander Vs. Road (E), Thane 401 105 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aajfa4249G राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri V Vidhyadhar "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Sanjay Sharma

housing project II and no deduction was claimed on project I, consisting of building 03 viz. Topaz Building. On verification of the plan, it was found that there was a road for the said plot with building Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 (Project II) on one side and building Nos. 10, 11 and 12 (Project I) on the other

JM FINANCIAL PROPERTY FUND I,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 25(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

Property Fund Versus ITO (supra) on similar set of facts on similar denial of exemption under section 10(23FB) passed the exemption under section 10(23FB) passed the following order: following order: “12. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. Ostensibly, as “12. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. Ostensibly, as “12. We have carefully considered the rival submissions

JM FINANCIAL PROPERTY FUND I,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 25(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

Property Fund Versus ITO (supra) on similar set of facts on similar denial of exemption under section 10(23FB) passed the exemption under section 10(23FB) passed the following order: following order: “12. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. Ostensibly, as “12. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. Ostensibly, as “12. We have carefully considered the rival submissions

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