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 68 of the income tax act the main submission of the assessee are as under:- i. The loan received by the assessee from sunrise Asian Ltd of ₹ 40 lakhs on 30/9/2013 is a genuine loan and out of the accounted source of the lender company. ITA No. 2089, 709 to 713 & 718 Mum/2023

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 68 of the income tax act the main submission of the assessee are as under:- i. The loan received by the assessee from sunrise Asian Ltd of ₹ 40 lakhs on 30/9/2013 is a genuine loan and out of the accounted source of the lender company. ITA No. 2089, 709 to 713 & 718 Mum/2023

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 68 of the income tax act the main submission of the assessee are as under:- i. The loan received by the assessee from sunrise Asian Ltd of ₹ 40 lakhs on 30/9/2013 is a genuine loan and out of the accounted source of the lender company. ITA No. 2089, 709 to 713 & 718 Mum/2023

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 68 of the income tax act the main submission of the assessee are as under:- i. The loan received by the assessee from sunrise Asian Ltd of ₹ 40 lakhs on 30/9/2013 is a genuine loan and out of the accounted source of the lender company. ITA No. 2089, 709 to 713 & 718 Mum/2023

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 68 of the income tax act the main submission of the assessee are as under:- i. The loan received by the assessee from sunrise Asian Ltd of ₹ 40 lakhs on 30/9/2013 is a genuine loan and out of the accounted source of the lender company. ITA No. 2089, 709 to 713 & 718 Mum/2023

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

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

house property. Further with commercial property, the learned AO took 10% increase in the amount of rent received by the assessee for earlier year and accordingly assessed annual value at ₹ 42,900/–. Accordingly the rental income of ₹ 279,660/– was determined and added to the returned income of the assessee. Assessee did not offer such annual income in return

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

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

house property. Further with commercial property, the learned AO took 10% increase in the amount of rent received by the assessee for earlier year and accordingly assessed annual value at ₹ 42,900/–. Accordingly the rental income of ₹ 279,660/– was determined and added to the returned income of the assessee. Assessee did not offer such annual income in return

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

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

house property. Further with commercial property, the learned AO took 10% increase in the amount of rent received by the assessee for earlier year and accordingly assessed annual value at ₹ 42,900/–. Accordingly the rental income of ₹ 279,660/– was determined and added to the returned income of the assessee. Assessee did not offer such annual income in return

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

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

house property. Further with commercial property, the learned AO took 10% increase in the amount of rent received by the assessee for earlier year and accordingly assessed annual value at ₹ 42,900/–. Accordingly the rental income of ₹ 279,660/– was determined and added to the returned income of the assessee. Assessee did not offer such annual income in return

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

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

house property. Further with commercial property, the learned AO took 10% increase in the amount of rent received by the assessee for earlier year and accordingly assessed annual value at ₹ 42,900/–. Accordingly the rental income of ₹ 279,660/– was determined and added to the returned income of the assessee. Assessee did not offer such annual income in return

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

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

house property. Further with commercial property, the learned AO took 10% increase in the amount of rent received by the assessee for earlier year and accordingly assessed annual value at ₹ 42,900/–. Accordingly the rental income of ₹ 279,660/– was determined and added to the returned income of the assessee. Assessee did not offer such annual income in return

DCIT 5(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. DEEPAK SHASHI BHUSHAN ROY, MUMBAI

In the result these grounds of appeal raised

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahaha & Shri Pawan Singhdcit 5(3)(1), Deepak Shashi Bhusan Roy, Flat Room No.573, Aayakar Bhavan, No.11, Rambha Chs Ltd, M.K.Road, Nepean Sea Road, Vs. Mumbai 400020 Mumbai-400006 Pan:Aaapr 7703 F

house property at Mumbai as self occupied property and taking it’s annual value in its nil. (iv) The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming the charging of interest under section 234B and 234C

MANIBEN P. CHHEDA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 14(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1706/Mum/2010 & I.T.A. No. 3724/Mum/13 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06 & 2006-07) Smt. Maniben P. Chheda Income Tax Officer बनाम/ 296, Old Post Office Lane, 14(3)(3) Vs. Mangaldas Market, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai - 400002 Mumbai "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacpc5479P

Section 27(iiib) would apply in the present case.” 8.4 Therefore, in light of the above judgement and various provisions of the Act the assessee’s contention is found to be acceptable and rent income received in respect of the said properties is taxable under the head Income from House Property. Therefore, disallowance made by the A.O. of Rs.1

MANOJ TEKRIWAL,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 24(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‗the Act‘) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–41, Mumbai [‗learned CIT(A)‘], for the assessment year 2010–11. 2. The appeal filed before us is delayed by 5 days. Along with the present appeal, assessee has also filed an application seeking condonation Manoj Tekriwal ITA No.4147/Mum./2015 of delay

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI vs. SHERIAR PHIROJSHA IRANI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Sandeep Singh Karhail

house property", to bring into operation, the proviso to section 54F. The rejection of the claim for exemption would arise if only the property stands in the name of the assessee, namely, individual or HUF. Given the fact that the assessee had not owned the property in her name only to the exclusion of anybody else including the husband