The project is developed by Danube Properties, part of the Danube Group led by Rizwan Sajan.

Why This Investment Matters

Tiger Shroff’s investment highlights a growing trend:

• Global celebrities investing in Dubai real estate
• Rising demand for waterfront luxury housing
• Continued confidence in Dubai’s long-term growth story

The actor described Dubai as a city with strong lifestyle appeal, infrastructure, and investment potential, calling it his “second home.”

About ‘Breez by Danube’

The project stands out for:

• Prime location in Dubai Maritime City
• Sea-facing and skyline views
• Fully furnished apartments
• 40+ lifestyle amenities
• Close proximity to major Dubai landmarks

Danube is also promoting its 1% payment plan, making premium real estate more accessible to investors.

Developer’s Take

According to Rizwan Sajan, Chairman of Danube Group, the investment reflects:

• Strong trust from global personalities
• Growing brand positioning of Danube in luxury yet affordable housing
• Dubai’s appeal as a safe and high-growth real estate market

Why Dubai Continues to Attract Investors

Dubai remains one of the most attractive real estate destinations globally due to:

• High rental yields
• Investor-friendly policies
• Tax-efficient environment
• World-class infrastructure
• Consistent demand from international buyers

Big Picture

Celebrity investments like Tiger Shroff’s are not just endorsements—they signal:

• Global capital flowing into Dubai real estate
• Rising demand for premium waterfront projects
• Strong positioning of developers like Danube in attracting international buyers

Final Takeaway

Tiger Shroff’s entry into Dubai real estate through Breez by Danube reinforces a clear trend: Dubai is no longer just a lifestyle destination—it’s a serious global investment hub.

Also Read: Danube Properties Extends 1% Monthly Payment Plan to Office Buyers with New Dubai Sports City Project

The post Tiger Shroff Invests in Dubai Project ‘Breez by Danube,’ appeared first on Square Feat India.

The Urban Development Department issued a public notice dated March 12, 2026, which was published in newspapers on April 23, 2026, inviting objections and suggestions from the public. The proposal seeks to amend Regulation 33(9)(A)(4) of the Development Control and Promotion Regulations (DCPR) 2034 for Greater Mumbai.

Key Highlights of the Proposed Changes

• Minimum Entitlement: Eligible occupants of existing buildings and chawls will receive a minimum carpet area of 370 sq.ft (34.37 sq.m) plus 35% additional fungible area, taking the total unit size to around 500 sq.ft.
• Maximum Free Area: Residents will be entitled to rehabilitation equivalent to the actual carpet area they occupied in the old building, up to a maximum of 70 sq.m (approximately 753 sq.ft) — all provided free of cost as part of the Rehabilitation Residential Component (RRC).
• Beyond 753 sq.ft: Any additional area requested by the occupant will be available at construction cost.
• Important Clarification: This enhanced provision does not apply to pure slum hutment dwellers, who continue to be covered under separate Dharavi Redevelopment Project rules.

The move follows a high-level review meeting chaired by Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis, where the need for better rehabilitation standards for building residents was emphasized to ensure smoother implementation of the project.

Background and Rationale

Dharavi, one of Asia’s largest informal settlements, is being redeveloped through a Special Purpose Vehicle. While the core focus has been on slum rehabilitation, thousands of families living in chawls, housing societies, and other formal structures within the redevelopment zone were previously entitled to only 300 sq.ft minimum carpet area.

Officials say the upgrade to 500 sq.ft (and up to 753 sq.ft) will provide significantly improved living conditions, better amenities, and higher resident satisfaction, while making the project more viable for developers through additional incentives.

The proposed modification explicitly states that the 35% fungible area provided for rehabilitation will not be counted towards the developer’s Incentive Sale Component (ISC).

Public Participation Invited

The government has given the public one month from the date of publication (i.e., until approximately May 23, 2026) to submit objections or suggestions. These can be sent in writing to the Deputy Director of Town Planning, Greater Mumbai, at ENSA Hutments, E-Block, Azad Maidan, Mumbai – 400 001.

The full notice is also available on the Maharashtra Government website.

This development is being seen as a resident-friendly step that could set a precedent for cluster redevelopment projects across Mumbai. Stakeholders, including housing societies in Dharavi, are expected to closely review the proposal in the coming weeks.

Also Read: Dharavi Redevelopment Tender Cancelled

The post Dharavi Redevelopment: Non-Slum Dwellers to Get Minimum 500 Sq Ft Homes Under Major Policy Upgrade appeared first on Square Feat India.

The bungalow, a Grade-II heritage structure and state-protected monument, has long been a silent witness to the city’s artistic and literary history. Built around 1882 in colonial style with teakwood verandas, ornate balconies, and wooden detailing, it served as the official residence of the school’s deans until 2007. Though the structure itself post-dates his birth, it stands on the exact site where Rudyard Kipling, the Nobel Prize-winning author of The Jungle Book, was born on December 30, 1865.

A Literary Legend’s Mumbai Roots Rudyard Kipling’s connection to the Sir J.J. School of Art runs deep through his father, John Lockwood Kipling, a British artist, sculptor, and pottery designer who was appointed professor in 1865 and became the school’s first dean. The family lived on the campus, and young Rudyard spent his earliest years here before being sent to England at age five. The original birth cottage was later demolished due to age, but the Dean’s Bungalow was constructed in its place.

Kipling, who would go on to win the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1907 and pen timeless works like Kim, The Jungle Book, and Just So Stories, never forgot his Bombay roots. In his writings, he affectionately called the city the “Mother of Cities” — a nod to its vibrant chaos that shaped his imagination. The bungalow, nestled amid the neo-Gothic grandeur of the J.J. School (established in 1857 with a generous donation from Parsi philanthropist Sir Jamsetjee Jeejebhoy), has been a focal point of heritage debates for over a decade. Earlier restoration attempts in 2002-2006 and 2008, along with proposals in 2015 to turn it into a literary museum with VR experiences based on The Jungle Book, had stalled due to bureaucratic hurdles.

State’s Ambitious Revival Plan The fresh government order, issued under the Directorate of Archaeology and Museums, allocates funds for a comprehensive makeover. The detailed cost breakup includes:

• Conservation and civil works: ₹3.35 crore
• Art Gallery: ₹96.39 lakh
• Site development and landscaping: ₹35 lakh
• Plumbing, electrification, and heritage-compliant illumination: ₹2.70 crore (combined)
• Architect’s fee (7%), contingencies (4%), insurance, escalation, and GST bringing the total to ₹9.95 crore.

The project will restore the bungalow’s original architectural features while creating a dedicated art gallery to showcase works by the school’s illustrious alumni — from M.F. Husain and S.H. Raza to other modern Indian masters. Landscaping, modern plumbing, electrification, and sensitive illumination will enhance its appeal as a tourist destination without compromising its heritage character. The Directorate of Archaeology and Museums has been appointed as the nodal agency, with the Director authorised to handle payments.

Cultural Affairs Secretary Kiran Kulkarni confirmed the decision, stating the focus is on structural maintenance and preserving the bungalow’s historic charm. The funds will be drawn from the Tourism and Cultural Affairs Department’s budget under the relevant head for protection of historical sites.

Reviving Mumbai’s Cultural Heart Once restored, the Dean’s Bungalow is expected to become a key stop on Mumbai’s heritage trail — a living museum linking colonial architecture, Indian art education, and global literary fame. For decades, the structure suffered from neglect, but this timely intervention signals a renewed commitment to preserving the city’s layered past.

As Mumbai gears up to celebrate its artistic legacy, the revival of Kipling’s family home promises to draw literature lovers, art enthusiasts, and tourists alike — breathing new life into a landmark that once cradled the imagination of one of the world’s greatest storytellers.

Also Read: Carmichael Road Bungalow sold for ₹220 Crore

The post Maharashtra Govt Sanctions ₹10 Crore for Restoration of Historic Dean’s Bungalow (Kipling Bungalow) at Sir JJ School of Art appeared first on Square Feat India.

The case, decided by a bench of Smt. Beena Pillai (Judicial Member) and Shri Girish Agrawal (Accountant Member) on April 15, 2026, is a textbook illustration of how large cash transactions — even entirely legitimate ones — can spiral into prolonged tax litigation when documentation is incomplete and third parties don’t cooperate with the taxman.

The Transaction That Caught the Taxman’s Eye

Pooja had not filed an income tax return for the financial year 2009-10 (Assessment Year 2010-11), believing her income was below the taxable threshold. She had no salary, no business income to speak of, and reported interest income of a mere Rs 14,429 when eventually asked to file.

But the Income Tax Department’s data systems told a different story. A review of her individual transaction statement flagged two significant financial events during that year — a cash deposit of Rs 40.09 lakhs into a Bank of Maharashtra account, and the purchase of a flat at Dev Shrishti, Kurla Camp Road, Ulhasnagar for Rs 12.65 lakhs, paid by cheque. Together, these transactions amounted to over Rs 52 lakhs — a striking sum for someone claiming negligible income.

The Assessing Officer (AO) at Income Tax Ward 2(3), Kalyan issued a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act in March 2017, invoking Section 147 to reopen the case on the ground that income had escaped assessment. Pooja was required to file a return and explain these transactions.

The Explanation: A Property Deal That Never Closed

Pooja’s explanation was straightforward. She had entered into a sale agreement with a developer, M/s Samruddhi Developers, for the sale of her ancestral house property — a plot identified as BK 1894-U No. 204, Shade No. 68. The developer had paid her a token advance of Rs 40 lakhs in cash, in two tranches: Rs 20 lakhs in June 2009 and another Rs 20 lakhs in December 2009. She deposited this cash into her Bank of Maharashtra account.

However, the sale ultimately did not go through. The deal fell apart and was cancelled. Since the advance had been received in cash, she returned it to the developer in cash — withdrawing the money from her bank account, as reflected in her passbook. She produced copies of the sale agreement and her bank passbook to support her account.

As for the flat purchase in Ulhasnagar, she explained that it was funded through three cheques totalling Rs 12.65 lakhs — a separate transaction entirely, with its own paper trail.

Why the Tax Officer Wasn’t Convinced

The Assessing Officer found the explanation plausible on its face but unverifiable. The critical problem was the developer. The AO issued a notice under Section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act to M/s Samruddhi Developers, asking them to confirm the transaction — but the developer simply did not respond.

With no third-party confirmation of the cash advance, the AO took the view that Pooja had failed to explain the source of the cash deposits with adequate documentary evidence. He invoked Section 68 of the Income Tax Act — which deals with unexplained cash credits — and added the entire Rs 40.09 lakhs to her income for the year. Interestingly, he did not pursue the flat purchase separately, treating that as explained by the cheque trail.

The addition of Rs 40.09 lakhs as unexplained income meant a substantial tax demand on a woman who had reported virtually no income that year.

The First Appeal: Half Relief, Half Frustration

Pooja challenged the addition before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), or CIT(A), operating through the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) in Delhi. She reiterated her explanation about the developer and the cancelled deal.

The CIT(A) was sympathetic but non-committal. In what can only be described as a compromise ruling, he observed that “there may be certain element of truth in the conditions of the assessee and the same cannot be totally ignored.” Rather than either accepting or rejecting her explanation fully, he split the addition down the middle — accepting 50% of the deposits as explained and confirming the remaining 50% as unexplained cash credit. This left Pooja with an addition of approximately Rs 20.04 lakhs still standing against her.

Neither side was fully satisfied. However, the Income Tax Department chose not to appeal the 50% relief granted by CIT(A) to the ITAT — which meant that portion was settled in Pooja’s favour. Pooja, on the other hand, appealed the remaining Rs 20.04 lakh addition to the ITAT.

A Complication: The 108-Day Delay

Before the ITAT could even hear the case on merits, there was a procedural hurdle. Pooja had filed appeals for two assessment years — 2010-11 and 2014-15 — and the CIT(A) had passed orders on both within a day of each other in December 2024. Pooja mistakenly believed both orders were the same, forwarded only one to her tax consultant, and the appeal for AY 2010-11 was consequently not filed within the prescribed time limit. The delay was 108 days.

She filed a petition for condonation of delay along with an affidavit explaining the genuine mix-up. The ITAT accepted this explanation, found the delay to be bona fide and unintentional, condoned it, and admitted the appeal for hearing.

What the ITAT Found: Two Critical Errors

When the ITAT examined the record in detail, it found that the remaining Rs 20.04 lakh addition suffered from two distinct and fatal flaws.

Error One — A Daughter’s Account Wrongly Attributed to the Mother

The total cash deposits of Rs 40.09 lakhs that the AO had added to Pooja’s income were not all in Pooja’s account. The ITAT found that the deposits were spread across two Bank of Maharashtra accounts — Rs 32.01 lakhs in Account No. 20116731464 held in Pooja’s own name, and Rs 8.99 lakhs in Account No. 20116743538 held in the name of Miss Pragathi Wadhwani — Pooja’s daughter.

This was a straightforward error. Deposits in a daughter’s bank account cannot be added as unexplained income in the mother’s hands. The ITAT deleted the Rs 8.99 lakh addition on this ground alone. When the department’s representative was confronted with this fact, he had nothing to say in response.

Error Two — Withdrawals Explained the Re-Deposits

After removing the daughter’s deposits and accounting for the 50% relief already given by CIT(A), the disputed amount that remained was Rs 12.01 lakhs. This was the sum the ITAT now had to decide on.

Pooja’s counsel pointed the tribunal to her bank passbook, which showed a clear pattern. Between July 2009 and March 2010, Pooja had made withdrawals from her account totalling Rs 15.20 lakhs. The cash deposits of Rs 12.60 lakhs that the taxman found suspicious were made on March 30 and 31, 2010 — after those withdrawals. In other words, the deposits were simply money she had previously withdrawn, sitting with her in cash, and then re-deposited.

The ITAT laid down a clear and important principle: once there are deposits in a bank account with corresponding prior withdrawals, the entire deposit cannot automatically be treated as unexplained income. The burden shifts to the Revenue — it must specifically demonstrate that the withdrawals were used for some other purpose and were therefore not available to the assessee for re-deposit. The department failed to discharge this burden. The Rs 12.01 lakh addition was accordingly deleted.

The Final Scoreboard

The appeal was allowed in full. Pooja walked away with a clean slate for Assessment Year 2010-11, more than 15 years after the original transactions took place.

The Broader Lesson

This case carries important lessons for anyone dealing in cash — particularly in property transactions. A legitimate deal, a cancelled agreement, and a developer who simply didn’t respond to a tax notice were enough to trigger over a decade of litigation for an ordinary woman from Ambernath.

The ITAT’s ruling reinforces two key principles of tax law. First, family members’ bank accounts must not be clubbed together without clear legal basis. Second, cash re-deposits backed by prior withdrawals from the same account cannot be treated as fresh unexplained income unless the department can prove the withdrawals were deployed elsewhere.

For taxpayers, the case underscores the importance of ensuring that all parties to a property transaction — especially developers receiving or returning cash — respond to tax notices when called upon, since a developer’s silence can turn a straightforward explanation into years of appellate proceedings.

Also Read: ITAT Mumbai Clears Real Estate Developer of Fraud Allegations, Allows ₹1.79 Crore Tax Deduction

The post Property Deal Gone Wrong: Rs 40 Lakh Cash Deposit Lands Ambernath Woman in Tax Trouble appeared first on Square Feat India.

Benchmark Opening Sets a Tentative Tone

The broader market opened under pressure following recent declines driven by global tensions, rising crude prices, and continued foreign investor outflows. Recent sessions have already seen sharp cuts in benchmark indices, reflecting a risk-off environment across equities.

This cautious undertone has spilled over into rate-sensitive sectors like real estate, which tend to react sharply to liquidity conditions and macro uncertainty.

Realty Indices: Weak Start, Continuing Consolidation

The Nifty Realty index opened in the high-700 range (around 784 levels), indicating a muted start after recent declines.

Recent performance data shows:

• The index had already slipped to around ₹788, down nearly 1.8% in the previous session, reflecting sustained selling pressure.
• Over a slightly longer period, the sector remains under stress, with negative returns over 6 months and about −7% over one year, despite strong long-term gains.

This pattern suggests that the sector is currently in a short-term consolidation phase within a broader correction cycle, rather than a clear directional trend.

Developers Showing Early Strength

Despite the weak undertone, a few large-cap developers showed signs of stability or mild buying interest in early trade:

• DLF and Phoenix Mills remained relatively steady, supported by their strong balance sheets and institutional ownership.
• Prestige Estates Projects and Lodha Developers also showed signs of holding ground near previous levels, indicating selective accumulation.

Such resilience typically points to investors favouring quality names with execution visibility, even when broader sentiment is weak.

Underperformers: Broad-Based Selling Persists

On the flip side, several real estate stocks continued to face pressure:

• Godrej Properties, Brigade Enterprises, and Sobha remained under selling pressure following recent declines.
• Earlier in the year, many of these stocks had already seen sharp corrections, with several falling between 4% to 6% in single sessions during market stress phases.

The weakness is not isolated — it reflects a broader trend of investors trimming exposure to high-beta, rate-sensitive sectors amid macro uncertainty.

Structural Pressures on the Realty Sector

The real estate sector’s performance today is being shaped by a combination of macro and sector-specific factors:

1. Interest Rate Sensitivity
Real estate stocks are closely tied to borrowing costs. Elevated global yields and uncertainty around rate cuts are keeping sentiment cautious.

2. Global Risk Factors
Recent market declines have been driven by geopolitical tensions and oil price volatility, both of which impact inflation expectations and investor risk appetite.

3. Spillover from IT Sector Weakness
The recent sell-off in IT stocks has had a secondary impact on real estate, especially in key markets where housing demand is linked to tech employment.

4. Year-to-Date Correction
Real estate stocks have already corrected significantly in 2026, with some counters falling as much as 20–30%, leading to cautious positioning by investors.

How the Index Structure Is Amplifying Moves

The Nifty Realty index is heavily influenced by a handful of large developers. Stocks like DLF, Godrej Properties, Prestige Estates, and Phoenix Mills carry significant weight, meaning even moderate declines in these names can drag the entire index lower.

This concentration effect explains why the index often moves sharply even when only a few stocks are under pressure.

What to Expect Through the Day

Range-Bound but Volatile Trading Likely
Given the weak opening and lack of strong triggers, real estate stocks are expected to trade within a narrow range, with intermittent volatility.

Stock-Specific Action Will Dominate
Developers with strong fundamentals may continue to see selective buying, while highly valued or leveraged companies could face selling pressure.

Dependence on Broader Market Direction
If benchmark indices stabilise or recover, realty stocks could see a mild rebound. However, continued weakness in the broader market may keep the sector under pressure.

Watch Interest Rate Signals
Any commentary or movement in bond yields could trigger sharp moves in real estate counters during the session.

Outlook: Consolidation Phase Continues

The real estate sector appears to be in a transition phase — caught between strong long-term housing demand and short-term macro headwinds.

Today’s opening suggests that while panic selling has eased compared to earlier corrections, conviction buying is still limited. The most likely outcome is a choppy, stock-specific session, with investors remaining selective rather than taking broad sector bets.

Also Read: Realty Stocks Extend Gains as Markets Open

The post Realty Stocks Open Weak as Market Sentiment Remains Fragile; Select Counters Show Early Buying appeared first on Square Feat India.

Justice Sandeep V. Marne, pronouncing the judgment on April 22, 2026, pulled back the curtain on what he described as a man running litigation “from behind the curtains” through his niece, using her as a front to frustrate a valid eviction decree. The judge did not mince words, calling the Appellate Court’s order “indefensible” and observing that allowing it to stand would amount to “assisting the Defendant in his nefarious designs.”

The Landlady, the Sub-Tenant, and a Decree That Gathered Dust

The story begins in 2009, when Gool Rusi Vatcha, the owner of Jamset Building, filed an eviction suit against her tenant Yusufali Danawalla and his sub-tenant Kalam Khan for Room No. 15 on the third floor of the building. Danawalla never appeared to contest the suit. Khan did, claiming he had been living with the original tenant as a distant relative and had even paid Rs. 2 lakhs to the landlady’s Constituted Attorney (CA) for transfer of the rent receipt — though no receipt was ever transferred. The Small Causes Court decreed the eviction in September 2011 on grounds of unlawful subletting and the landlady’s bona fide need.

Then, remarkably, the landlady waited. Eleven years passed before she filed an execution application in 2022. When she finally moved to take possession, what followed was a masterclass in litigation delay — one that would ultimately fail when it reached the Bombay High Court.

The Undertaking That Gave the Game Away

When the execution application was filed in 2022, Kalam Khan appeared before the Executing Court in January 2023 — very much alive to the proceedings and very much claiming possession of the flat. He signed an undertaking agreeing to pay the landlady Rs. 46 lakhs: Rs. 40 lakhs as a lump sum, Rs. 1 lakh in rent arrears, and Rs. 5 lakhs towards advocate fees, in exchange for recognition of his tenancy. He also specifically undertook that he would not induct any third party into the premises.

He paid nothing. He stopped attending court. And then, exactly 27 days after signing that undertaking, his niece Naziya Wasim Shaikh walked into court and filed Obstructionist Notice No. 43 of 2023 — claiming that she, not Kalam Khan, was in possession of the flat and had independent rights over it.

The timing alone, as the High Court would later note, told its own story.

Naziya’s Version of Events

Naziya’s claim was dramatic. She said she had been living in the flat since 2002, first with Kalam Khan, then separately after her marriage in 2007, and then back in the flat from 2010 onwards after separating from her husband, with her young son.

She claimed that after the 2011 eviction decree, the landlady’s CA had approached her with a proposal: pay Rs. 10 lakhs and the tenancy would be transferred to her name. She said she agreed, paying Rs. 10,000 every month from January 2012, clearing the full amount by January 2022. She produced a detailed schedule of payments running across ten years.

She then claimed the CA shifted the goalposts — suddenly demanding Rs. 50 lakhs more, threatening to throw her and her child out if she didn’t comply. She alleged that the landlady and Kalam Khan were in collusion — that Khan had colluded with the landlady to get a decree passed, then given up possession to her, making the decree a tool to evict her rather than him.

It was a compelling story. The Appellate Court believed enough of it to send the matter back for a full trial.

The Cracks in the Story

The Trial Court had dismissed Naziya’s application outright in May 2023, imposing costs of Rs. 5,000 on her. The Appellate Court reversed this in November 2025, holding that Naziya deserved a chance to prove her payment of Rs. 10 lakhs through evidence. It was this reversal that the landlady challenged before the High Court.

Justice Marne went through the record with care, and found the cracks in Naziya’s account to be fatal.

First, the payment story did not survive scrutiny alongside Kalam Khan’s own undertaking. In January 2023, Khan claimed exclusive possession of the flat and undertook to pay Rs. 40 lakhs for tenancy recognition. If Naziya had been paying the landlady’s CA since 2012 and had cleared Rs. 10 lakhs by 2022 — with Khan’s knowledge and involvement, as she claimed — why would Khan turn up the very next month claiming exclusive possession and offering a completely separate Rs. 46 lakhs? Both versions could not simultaneously be true.

Second, and more damaging, was where Kalam Khan kept turning up. When the bailiff arrived at the flat in March 2024 to serve a possession warrant, he found Khan there. Khan told the bailiff he was the sole occupant. A photograph was produced in court showing Khan accepting service of the warrant — not a casual visitor, but a resident. In March 2024, Khan also filed a court application stating he “resides with the obstructionist as a family member.” In July 2024, he filed yet another application, claiming he was never served with the original suit summons — a claim the court noted was demonstrably false since he had filed a written statement in the suit. As recently as March 2026, when the present writ petition was served at the flat, Naziya accepted the notice — for both herself and Kalam Khan.

The court also noted that Naziya had suppressed the fact that she was Khan’s niece in her obstruction application, and that her name appeared in his ration card.

The High Court’s conclusion was blunt: Naziya did not possess the flat independently of Kalam Khan. She had entered through him, she lived with him, and she had no rights separate from his. Since Khan himself had no legal rights — having been found to be an unlawful sub-tenant in 2011 — Naziya’s claim of independent rights had no foundation whatsoever.

The Legal Question: Does Every Obstruction Need a Full Trial?

Beyond the facts of this particular dispute, the judgment settles an important legal point about execution proceedings.

Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure allows a third party to obstruct execution of a decree by claiming independent rights. Rule 101 requires the court to determine “all questions” arising from such an application. The Appellate Court read this to mean that Naziya was entitled to a full trial to prove her claim.

Justice Marne disagreed, relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Silverline Forum Pvt. Ltd. vs. Rajiv Trust (1998) and an earlier Bombay High Court ruling in Indubai D. Kothawale vs. Laxman Balwant Chougule (2023). The law, he held, does not require a full-fledged trial in every obstruction case. Where the Executing Court is satisfied that the obstructionist has no semblance of a legal right, it can conduct a summary inquiry and reject the application at the threshold. To hold otherwise would be to hand every unscrupulous occupant a tool to delay valid decrees indefinitely, simply by filing an obstruction and demanding a trial.

Rule 101, the judge held, is designed to prevent multiplicity of proceedings — not to create an avenue for baseless claims to be litigated like full suits.

The Appellate Court Gets a Sharp Rebuke

The Appellate Court did not escape the High Court’s scrutiny unscathed. Justice Marne noted that while the Appellate Court’s order ran to 18 pages, its actual reasoning occupied barely two pages, most of which he found “grossly perverse.”

The Appellate Court had flagged what it saw as inconsistency in the Trial Court’s findings — that Defendant No. 2 could not simultaneously be in exclusive possession while Naziya’s documents showed her residence. The High Court disposed of this cleanly: whether Khan lived there alone or with Naziya was irrelevant. The question was whether Naziya lived there to the exclusion of Khan — and she admittedly did not.

The Appellate Court had also laid weight on the landlady’s 11-year delay in executing the decree. The High Court dismissed this as “totally irrelevant” to the question of Naziya’s independent rights.

Most pointedly, the High Court observed that the Appellate Court had “failed to lift the veil” — that it had allowed its jurisdiction to be abused by Naziya and Khan, and that upholding its order would have rewarded Khan’s “nefarious designs” by allowing him to continue occupying the premises under the cover of his niece’s obstruction.

The Final Order

The Bombay High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the Appellate Court’s order dated November 27, 2025, and restored the Trial Court’s original order of May 6, 2023 dismissing Naziya’s obstruction. No costs were imposed by the High Court.

After 15 years of litigation — a suit filed in 2009, a decree in 2011, an execution attempt in 2022, and three rounds of court proceedings — the landlady can finally take possession of Room No. 15, Jamset Building.

Also Read: Man wants to sell Kidney, not for an iPhone but to pay deposit to Landlord

The post “Courts Won’t Be Taken for a Ride”: Bombay High Court Sees Through Niece’s Ruse, Restores Landlady’s 15-Year Wait for Her Flat appeared first on Square Feat India.

But when demonetisation hit in November 2016, and Arti deposited Rs 17.50 lakhs in cash across seven bank accounts, she became exactly the kind of person the Income Tax Department was looking for. What followed was nearly a decade of tax notices, hearings, appeals, and mounting anxiety — before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in Mumbai finally cleared her completely in an order dated April 15, 2026, pronounced by Judicial Member Shri Pawan Singh.

The story of how she got there is one of the most instructive demonetisation-era tax cases to emerge from Mumbai’s courts — and its ending carries an important message for every taxpayer who ever chose to come clean with the government.

The Deposit That Raised Red Flags

On the night of November 8, 2016, Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced that Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 currency notes would cease to be legal tender. Citizens were given a window to deposit their old notes into bank accounts. The Income Tax Department simultaneously received data feeds on every significant cash deposit made during this window, with instructions to scrutinise deposits that appeared disproportionate to the depositor’s declared income.

Arti deposited Rs 17.50 lakhs in cash across seven bank accounts during this period. Her declared income for Assessment Year 2017-18 was Rs 5.31 lakhs, of which Rs 4.25 lakhs was tuition income and the rest was interest and minor receipts. To a scrutinising officer, the arithmetic looked suspicious — a woman declaring Rs 5 lakh a year had somehow accumulated Rs 17.50 lakhs in cash.

Her case was selected for limited scrutiny. Notices were issued. The questions began.

Her Explanation: Years of Careful Saving

Arti’s answer to the department was simple and consistent across every round of proceedings. The cash had not appeared from nowhere. It came from two entirely legitimate sources:

• From financial year 2014-15 onwards, she had made cash withdrawals from three bank accounts — City Co-op Bank, Mangalore Co-op Bank, and Karnataka Bank. Total withdrawals from these three accounts exceeded Rs 20 lakhs over the period. She had accumulated this cash at home gradually, over years.
• Her tuition fees for 2017-18 amounting to Rs 4.25 lakhs, received in cash as is standard for private home tutors, formed part of what she deposited.

She also pointed out that three of her accounts were jointly held with her husband, who had himself deposited Rs 13.31 lakhs during the same demonetisation window — painting the picture of an older couple that had simply accumulated household savings in cash over many years, not one that was channelling unaccounted wealth through the banking system.

She furnished copies of her bank passbooks, her withdrawal records, and her return of income to support these submissions.

The Tax Officer Applies the Human Probability Test

The Assessing Officer was unconvinced. He invoked what Indian tax law calls the test of “human probabilities” — a doctrine established by the Supreme Court in landmark rulings including Sumati Dayal vs CIT and CIT vs Durga Prasad More — which asks not merely whether an explanation is theoretically possible, but whether it is consistent with how ordinary, prudent people actually behave.

His logic ran as follows:

• No prudent person, he argued, would withdraw Rs 17.50 lakhs in cash across 54 separate transactions over two years and simply store it at home — particularly someone who was simultaneously maintaining fixed deposits of Rs 50,000 to Rs 1.40 lakhs in multiple banks and earning interest on them.
• If Arti genuinely had this cash, why keep it idle at home when she could have earned interest on it in the bank?
• In the previous assessment year 2016-17, her cash deposit was just Rs 25,000. The sudden appearance of Rs 17.50 lakhs in cash during demonetisation — and only during demonetisation — looked less like legitimate savings and more like an attempt to launder old currency notes.
• The 54 withdrawals over two years, he noted, were consistent with routine personal and household expenses — not with deliberately accumulating a large cash reserve.

He issued a final show cause notice asking why the entire Rs 17.50 lakh deposit should not be treated as unexplained cash credit. Arti replied twice, reiterating her position. The officer was unmoved.

He did give her two concessions. He allowed Rs 2.50 lakhs as per a CBDT notification dated November 15, 2016, which permitted everyone a standard cash deposit during demonetisation without question. He also allowed Rs 1 lakh as a reasonable estimate of cash a senior citizen might hold at home. The remaining Rs 14 lakhs was added to her income as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act and taxed at the punitive enhanced rate under Section 115BBE — a provision that imposes tax at approximately 60% on unexplained income. The tax demand on Rs 14 lakhs at this rate was crushing for a woman living on tuition fees.

The First Appeal: No Relief

Arti challenged the addition before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), or CIT(A), in Chennai. She reiterated her submissions about the bank withdrawals and tuition income.

The CIT(A) sided with the Assessing Officer. It noted that Arti had not furnished a cash flow statement tracking her cash position year by year, had not produced independent evidence of her tuition income in the form of receipts or fee registers, and had not shown how the cash balance had been carried forward year after year. The Rs 14 lakh addition was confirmed in its entirety.

Arti appealed to the ITAT.

The Trump Card Nobody Had Noticed

When the case came before the ITAT, Arti’s advocate Rahul Hakani did something that changed everything. He placed before the Tribunal a document that both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) had either overlooked or chosen to ignore — Form No. 4 issued under the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016 (IDS-2016).

Here is why this mattered enormously.

In 2016, ahead of demonetisation, the Government of India had launched a one-time amnesty scheme called the Income Declaration Scheme. It offered people with unaccounted income a chance to come clean — declare the income, pay tax, surcharge, and penalty on it, and receive immunity from further prosecution or scrutiny in respect of that declared income.

Arti had participated in this scheme. On September 30, 2016 — six weeks before demonetisation was announced — she had declared undisclosed cash income of Rs 10,57,163 covering Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2014-15. The income tax department had accepted her declaration, issued Form No. 4 with receipt number 418939980010318, and collected from her:

• Tax of Rs 3,17,149
• Surcharge of Rs 79,287
• Penalty of Rs 79,287
• Total paid to the government: Rs 4,75,723

This was not a trivial sum for a tuition teacher. She had voluntarily approached the government, disclosed her unaccounted savings, and paid nearly Rs 4.75 lakhs in tax and penalties to regularise her position. The government had accepted her declaration and her money.

And crucially — the declaration established that as of July 1, 2016, Arti legitimately had Rs 10.57 lakhs in cash in her possession. Not black money. Not unaccounted wealth. Disclosed, taxed, and acknowledged cash.

The timing was equally important. The IDS declaration was made on September 30, 2016 — before demonetisation. She could not have known demonetisation was coming when she made the disclosure. This was not a retrospective attempt to cover her tracks.

The Math That Made It All Add Up

With the IDS declaration on the table, Arti’s advocate walked the Tribunal through a clean calculation that left nothing unexplained:

• Total cash deposited during demonetisation: Rs 17,50,000
• Less standard CBDT allowance: Rs 2,50,000
• Balance requiring explanation: Rs 15,00,000
• Less cash available as of July 1, 2016 per IDS Form No. 4: Rs 10,57,163
• Balance remaining to explain: Rs 4,42,837
• Less tuition income savings for AY 2017-18 and minor savings: Rs 4,42,837
• Amount left unexplained: Nil

Every rupee was accounted for. The IDS-declared cash covered the bulk of it, and her tuition earnings took care of the rest. There was nothing left for the department to tax.

The Department’s Last Argument — and Why It Failed

The Revenue’s representative, Senior Departmental Representative Shri Rajesh Sakhardande, tried one last argument. He suggested that the IDS declaration “may have been created to show cash in hand” — implying it could have been filed with the ulterior motive of justifying future demonetisation deposits.

The ITAT rejected this reasoning. The IDS declaration had been filed on September 30, 2016 — before demonetisation was announced on November 8, 2016. Arti could not have anticipated demonetisation when she filed her declaration. Moreover, the government had accepted her declaration, issued a formal receipt, and collected nearly Rs 4.75 lakhs from her. It was not open to the department to now question a disclosure it had itself accepted and benefited from.

As the ITAT put it plainly: once the IDS declared by the assessee is accepted and taxed, the cash in hand cannot be doubted.

Two Additional Legal Points

Arti’s advocate also raised two important technical arguments before the ITAT, though the tribunal decided the case primarily on the IDS point:

• Section 68 may not apply to individuals without books of account. Section 68, which deals with unexplained cash credits, technically applies to entries in a taxpayer’s books of account. Arti, as an individual without formal books, may not have been liable under this provision at all — a point supported by a 1983 Bombay High Court ruling in CIT vs Bhaichand N. Gandhi.
• The enhanced tax rate under Section 115BBE cannot apply retrospectively. This provision, which imposes tax at approximately 60% on unexplained income, came into force only from December 15, 2016. Applying it to cash that pre-dated that provision would amount to retrospective taxation — which is impermissible in law. An ITAT Rajkot Bench ruling in ITO vs Mahendrakumar Bhagvandas (2025) was cited in support.

The Verdict: Complete Victory

The ITAT allowed Arti’s appeal in full. The entire Rs 14 lakh addition was deleted. The grounds of appeal were allowed.

The journey from the original tax addition to final vindication covered:

• An assessment order by the ITO, Lalbaug
• A first appeal before the CIT(A) in Chennai — dismissed
• A second appeal before the ITAT Mumbai — won completely

For a 62-year-old tuition teacher from Matunga, it was a hard, expensive, and exhausting road. But at the end of it, every rupee was accounted for, every penny was proven, and the government’s own paperwork had saved her.

The Lesson for Every Taxpayer

This case carries a message that goes far beyond Arti’s individual victory. It demonstrates that participating in government amnesty schemes is not merely an act of compliance — it can, years later, become the most important piece of evidence a taxpayer has in their favour.

It also stands as a warning about how demonetisation-era scrutiny affected ordinary, honest savers disproportionately. A retired tutor who had spent years accumulating modest cash savings found herself fighting a Rs 14 lakh tax addition at a punitive 60% rate — not because she had done anything wrong, but because the sheer size of her deposit relative to her declared income looked suspicious on paper.

The ITAT’s ruling restores the balance: the government cannot invite citizens to disclose their cash, collect tax on it, issue formal receipts acknowledging it — and then turn around and treat that same cash as black money when it surfaces during demonetisation.

Also Read: Lodha Developers Ordered to Pay Senior Citizens for Harassment & Mental Torture in Worli Project

The post 62-Year-Old Tutor’s Rs 17.5 Lakh Demonetisation Deposit: How She Proved Every Penny Was Hers appeared first on Square Feat India.

Benchmark Mood: Weak Undertone with Pockets of Stability

Early trade saw frontline indices edge lower, weighed down by continued pressure in IT stocks and cautious global cues. While the broader market avoided a sharp sell-off, the undertone remained fragile, keeping high-beta sectors like real estate under pressure.

This cautious opening comes after a recent pullback triggered by weak earnings outlook in IT and geopolitical uncertainty, both of which tend to indirectly affect real estate demand and investor sentiment.

Realty Indices: Flat to Slightly Negative Start

The Nifty Realty index opened around the 780–800 zone, broadly in line with its recent closing range, indicating a lack of strong directional momentum.

Intraday data suggests the index is moving within a narrow band, reflecting consolidation rather than aggressive buying or selling. On a broader timeframe, the sector has underperformed benchmarks, with negative one-year returns despite strong multi-year gains, highlighting a cooling phase after a strong cycle.

The index itself represents a basket of major listed developers across residential and commercial segments, making it a key barometer of real estate sentiment in India.

Early Gainers: Selective Buying in Strong Developers

Despite the muted start, a few developers showed resilience in early trade:

• DLF saw buying interest, continuing to benefit from its dominant weight in the index and relatively strong balance sheet.
• Anant Raj and Oberoi Realty were among stocks witnessing mild upticks, indicating selective accumulation.
• Some mid-cap counters also showed early strength, suggesting traders are looking for value opportunities within the sector.

This selective buying indicates that investors are not exiting the sector entirely but are rotating into fundamentally stronger or relatively undervalued names.

Laggards: Pressure Persists Across Key Names

On the flip side, several developers remained under pressure:

• Brigade Enterprises and Embassy Developments have been among recent underperformers, reflecting ongoing selling in parts of the sector.
• Broader trends show that real estate stocks have been vulnerable to sharp corrections, with some names declining significantly during recent sessions.

The weakness is not limited to individual stocks — it reflects a broader risk-off approach toward rate-sensitive sectors.

Why Realty Stocks Are Under Pressure

Several structural factors are influencing today’s performance:

1. Spillover from IT Sector Weakness
Real estate demand — especially commercial leasing — is closely linked to IT sector growth. Recent declines in IT stocks and concerns around slower growth are weighing on realty sentiment.

2. Interest Rate Sensitivity
Real estate remains one of the most interest-rate-sensitive sectors. Any uncertainty around rate cuts or inflation expectations tends to impact developer valuations immediately.

3. Sector-Wide Correction in 2026
Realty stocks have already corrected sharply this year — in some cases up to 20% — due to concerns around demand sustainability and macro headwinds.

4. High Weightage Concentration
A handful of large developers such as DLF, Macrotech (Lodha), Phoenix Mills, and Prestige Estates dominate the index. Their movement heavily influences the overall sector trend.

What to Expect Through the Day

Range-bound trading likely:
Given the flat-to-weak opening and absence of strong triggers, real estate stocks are expected to trade in a narrow range.

Stock-specific action to dominate:
Company-level developments, block deals, or institutional flows may drive individual stocks rather than the entire sector moving together.

Sell-on-rise behavior possible:
Recent sessions indicate that traders are using rallies to book profits, especially in overvalued counters.

Volatility remains high:
With global cues uncertain and domestic sentiment mixed, intraday swings could be sharp despite a lack of clear direction.

Outlook: Consolidation Continues, Not a Breakdown

The broader real estate sector appears to be in a consolidation phase rather than a structural downturn. While short-term sentiment remains cautious, underlying fundamentals such as housing demand and balance sheet improvement in large developers continue to provide support.

For today, expect choppy, range-bound movement with a slight negative bias, with stronger developers holding up better than the rest of the pack.

Also Read: Realty Stocks Open Mixed as Markets Consolidate; Select Developers Show Early Strength

The post Realty Stocks Open Cautious as Markets Waver; Select Developers Hold Ground Amid Volatility appeared first on Square Feat India.

What Is Gairan Land?

Gairan land refers to village common grazing land — pasture traditionally reserved for the free use of village cattle under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. These lands were historically off-limits for any alternative use. Over decades, however, rapid urbanisation has brought large tracts of such land within the jurisdictions of Municipal Corporations and Municipal Councils, where they have often remained in legal limbo — neither actively used for grazing nor formally available for civic development.

The Key Change

The amendment inserts a new Sub-section (8) into Section 22A of the Code. In plain terms, it allows Gairan land located within a Municipal Corporation or Municipal Council area — where a final Development Plan has already been notified under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 — to be used for the specific purposes designated for it in that Development Plan. Crucially, this can only happen with prior permission from the State Government.

Why This Amendment Was Needed

The move has been in the making for years. The Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal No. 1132/2011 (Jagpal Singh & Others vs. State of Punjab & Others), had flagged concerns about misuse of common grazing lands across India. Following those observations, Maharashtra issued guidelines in 2011 and amended Section 22A in 2017. More recently, the Bombay High Court’s observations in Writ Petition No. 3098/2021 (Santosh Madhukar Bhondve vs. State of Maharashtra) on September 12, 2024 brought renewed urgency. The 2026 amendment is the government’s legislative response — designed to provide a legal framework to utilise these urban pockets of Gairan land productively and in a planned manner.

What the GR Directs Field Officers to Do

The GR lays down four clear instructions for revenue officials across the state:

First, Gairan lands within Municipal Corporation or Municipal Council limits that are included in a final Development Plan are now eligible for use as per that plan. Second, such lands can only be put to the specific purpose for which they are reserved in the Development Plan — whether that be a school, road, garden, or housing — and no other. Third, prior State Government approval is mandatory before any such land is put to use. Fourth, once approval is granted, the District Collector must update the land records: the “Gairan” entry must be removed and the new designated purpose must be formally recorded.

Scale of the Issue

The amendment is significant given the sheer scale of Gairan land locked in legal uncertainty. According to an affidavit filed by the Maharashtra government before the Bombay High Court in 2022, there are over 2,22,153 illegal constructions on Gairan lands across the state, encroaching upon approximately 10,089 hectares. Separately, the state had identified 7,700 hectares of grazing land for potential diversion for public infrastructure projects statewide. Mumbai-specific figures, however, are not publicly disclosed and would require an RTI query to the relevant Collector’s office.

What It Means in Practice

For cities like Mumbai, Pune, Nagpur, and other Municipal Corporation areas, this amendment effectively creates a lawful pathway to develop land parcels that were previously stuck between their village-era classification and modern urban needs. A plot classified as Gairan but reserved for a public garden in the Development Plan, for instance, can now legally be developed as one — provided the State Government gives the nod.

Urban planners and civic bodies are expected to identify such parcels and initiate the approval process. Legal experts note, however, that the requirement of prior State Government permission adds an important safeguard against arbitrary diversion of these commons.

Also Read: 87 Land Deals for 1862+ Acres Closed in FY-23

The post Maharashtra Unlocks Gairan Land in Urban Areas for Development: What the New Amendment Means appeared first on Square Feat India.

The acquired land parcels are expected to unlock a massive development potential of nearly 229 million sq. ft. over the next two to five years, setting the stage for a significant expansion cycle in the sector.

A key highlight of this growth story is the massive capital requirement it brings. Developing these land parcels will require over ₹92,000 crore in construction funding, out of which more than ₹52,000 crore is expected to come from external sources such as banks, private equity, and Alternative Investment Funds (AIFs). This creates a large financing opportunity for institutional investors and private credit players.

The momentum has continued into 2026 as well. In just the first quarter, developers acquired around 900 acres of land valued at nearly ₹18,000 crore. Notably, the Mumbai Metropolitan Region (MMR) recorded the highest-value deal, where an 11-acre land parcel was transacted for ₹5,400 crore—underscoring the continued dominance of premium urban markets.

The report highlights a clear divide between Tier I and Tier II cities. While Tier I cities accounted for 89% of total investment, they represented only 52% of the total land area acquired. On the other hand, Tier II cities—such as Ahmedabad, Indore, and Nagpur—accounted for 48% of land transactions by area but attracted just 11% of the total investment. This disparity reflects higher land and development costs in metro cities, while also indicating future growth potential in emerging markets.

Residential real estate continues to be the primary growth driver. Around 78% of the acquired land—approximately 2,398 acres—is earmarked for housing projects, requiring an estimated ₹72,000 crore in construction capital. This trend highlights strong demand for housing driven by rapid urbanization and rising homeownership aspirations.

The office segment remains the second-largest contributor, with an estimated capital requirement of ₹8,700 crore. Demand for Grade A office spaces continues to be fueled by corporate expansion and the growth of Global Capability Centres (GCCs).

On the supply side, individual landowners dominated the market, accounting for 65% of total land transactions. Cities like Chennai and Pune saw particularly high participation from individual sellers, while corporate entities were more active in Hyderabad. In Delhi NCR, government bodies remained the primary land suppliers.

Industry experts believe that this surge in land acquisition, coupled with rising institutional participation and diversified funding sources, is transforming India’s real estate ecosystem. Developers are not only focusing on traditional residential and office segments but are also expanding into emerging asset classes such as data centres and industrial parks.

With strong demand fundamentals, evolving financing structures, and sustained investor confidence, India’s real estate sector appears well-positioned for long-term growth through the decade.

Also Read: Indian Real Estate during Dussehra: A Period of Growth and Opportunity

The post India Real Estate Boom: Developers Acquire 3,000+ Acres, Unlock ₹52,000 Cr Financing Opportunity appeared first on Square Feat India.