1. Ram Pershad & Sons. v. CIT (Del)

241 ITR 426High Court2000#14584 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2022.

Also reported as

81 Taxmann 332

Judgments citing 1. Ram Pershad & Sons. v. CIT (Del)

Yash Vardhan Arya, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer, (International Taxation) Ward-1(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 203/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Smt.Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 23Section 23(1)(a)Section 271(1)(c)

…of the property needs to be computed. This is in accordance with the Supreme Court decisions already brought on record. In the following cases the courts have held that fair rental value can be determined u/s 23(1}(a) of the IT Act. CIT Vs G Ramesan [Kerala] [241 ITR 426] CIT Vs Johny Joseph [Kerala] [241 ITR 423] ataraj Vs DCIT [Madras] [266 ITR 277J J K. Investors Bombay Ltd [Bombay 248 ITR 723] MAE Pacs [Bombay] [230 ITR 60] Considering the above, I am of the view that the annual lettable value of the property needs to be computed where the property is claimed vacant throughout the year and where the assessee…

ACIT, Circle-6(1), New Delhi vs. C J International Hotels Ltd, New Delhi

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 255/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 22

…1 ITA Nos. 254 & 255/Del/2018 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘B’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 254 /DEL/2018 ( A.Y 2013-14) (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) ACIT Vs C J International Hotels Ltd. Room No. 389, C. R. Building, 8, Hotel Le-Meridian, Windsor New Delhi Place, Janpath, New Delhi AAACC0174E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Jagdish Singh, Sr. DR Respondent by Sh. Tarandeep Singh, Adv Date of Hearing 25.08.2020 Date of Pronouncement 26.08.2020 ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM These two appeals are fil…

ACIT, Circle-6(1), New Delhi vs. C J International Hotels Ltd., New Delhi

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 254/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 22

Ms. Priyananki Singh Sood, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 6698/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri U.N. Marwah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shailesh Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 23(1)(A)Section 23(1)(c)Section 24

…mitted that Ld.CIT (A) confirmed addition by relying upon decisions of Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in case of Vivek Jain vs ACIT reported in (2011) 14 Taxmann.com 146 and Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Ram Pershad and Sons vs CIT reported in (1995) 81 Taxmann 332. 6.1 He submitted that decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Ram Pershad and Sons vs CIT(supra) is distinguishable on facts, as it was a case where, assessee claimed vacancy allowance on occupied property, which was never been let out in any of preceding assessment years, or even partly during year under consideration. Insofar as dec…

Sharan Hospitality P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 9(3), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 6717/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6717/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Sharan Hospitality Private Limited Dy. Cit – Circle 9(3) बनाम/ Ground Floor, Gys Infinity, Mumbai Paranjape ‘B’, Scheme, Subhas Road, Vs. Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-57 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aagcs 8608 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. Priyanka Jain ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K. Mahondas सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 26.5.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 12.9.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 18.9.2012, Dismissing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting Its Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2009- 10 Vide Order Dated 22.12.2011. 2. The Only Issue Arising In This Appeal Is The Correct Amount At Which The Annual Value In Respect Of The Assessee’S Swami Vivekanand (S.V.) Road, Mumbai Property

For Appellant: Ms. Priyanka JainFor Respondent: Shri K. Mahondas

Section 143(3)Section 22Section 23

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “ई” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, AM AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JM आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6717/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Sharan Hospitality Private Limited Dy. CIT – Circle 9(3) बनाम/ Ground Floor, GYS Infinity, Mumbai Paranjape ‘B’, Scheme, Subhas Road, Vs. Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-57 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. AAGCS 8608 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by : Ms. Priyanka Jain ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Shri K. Mahondas सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 26.5.2016…

M/S Sasi Enterprises, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1287/CHNY/2008[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Sept 2016AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1287/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2000-01 M/S Sasi Enterprises, The Assistant Commissioner Of No.36, Poes Garden, V. Income Tax, Chennai - 600 086. Central Circle Ii(2), Chennai - 600 034. Pan : Aacfs 4669 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. G. Seetharaman, CAFor Respondent: Sh. T.R. Senthil Kumar, Sr. Standing

Section 143(3)Section 23

…ncrease of 20%. Therefore, according to the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel, the CIT(Appeals) has rightly confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. The Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel placed his reliance on the judgment of Madras High Court in N. Nataraj v. DCIT (2004) 266 ITR 277. 5. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. Admittedly, the assessee returned a rental income of `90,000/- during the year under consideration. The Assessing Officer found that for the assessment year 1996-97, the assessee has returned rental income of `3,30,000/- for the ver…

Vijay Baldev Mehra, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 26(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6773/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Mar 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Vijay Baldev Mehra, Addl. Cit-26(1), C/O- M/S C.M. 6Th Floor, K.G. Mittal बनाम/ Gabhawala & Company, Aayurvedic Hospital Bldg, Vs. 42, Nanik Niwas, 30 Dr. Charni Road, Mumbai-400002 D.D. Sathe Marg, Girgaum Mumbai-400004 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Afypm7833C

Section 23(1)(b)

…first four lines as also the last four lines of the paragraph title “actual rent realized, how far decisive” have been reproduced verbatim (excluding the citations) in CIT vs Johny Joseph (2000) 241 ITR 423 (Ker.) and CIT vs G. Ramesan ; B. Indira Devi (2000) 241 ITR 426 (Ker.). Where letting out property is subject to the limitation provided under the rent control enactment and there is nothing on record to show that the agreed rent is not fair and reasonable then the actual rent received by the assessee should be regarded as the fair annual letting value of the property. Our view find support from the decisions…