196 (Bombay) and DCIT v. Arham IT Infrastructure (P) Ltd.

190 ITD 657Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2021#23320 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,356 Indian tax judgments — from 2025 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 24(b)Section 36(1)(iii)

Issues it is cited on

section 2(1a)section 2(31)construction pesection 39section 24(a)transferor companysection 24(b)house property incomesection 57(iii)section 151asection 57amalgamation

Judgments citing 196 (Bombay) and DCIT v. Arham IT Infrastructure (P) Ltd.

DCIT-CC-5(4), Mumbai vs. Raghuleela Estates Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5741/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 24

…perty‟. 27. The ld. CIT(A) has allowed the claim of the assessee relying upon the decision of the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Runwal Developers (P) Ltd, [2011] 15 taxmann.com 196 (Bombay) and DCIT vs Arham IT Infrastructure (P) Ltd, [2021] 190 ITD 657 (Delhi - Trib.). The CIT(A) observed that the common maintenance charges for which recovery has been made from the occupants has been offered as business income and the short fall of Rs. 1,47,25,623/- reimbursement receipts has not been claimed as a loss but has been disallowed while computing the business income. Hence, the CIT(A) directed the A…

DCIT-CC-5(4), Mumbai vs. Raghuleela Estates Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5740/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 24

…perty‟. 27. The ld. CIT(A) has allowed the claim of the assessee relying upon the decision of the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Runwal Developers (P) Ltd, [2011] 15 taxmann.com 196 (Bombay) and DCIT vs Arham IT Infrastructure (P) Ltd, [2021] 190 ITD 657 (Delhi - Trib.). The CIT(A) observed that the common maintenance charges for which recovery has been made from the occupants has been offered as business income and the short fall of Rs. 1,47,25,623/- reimbursement receipts has not been claimed as a loss but has been disallowed while computing the business income. Hence, the CIT(A) directed the A…

DCIT -CC-5(4), Mumbai vs. Raghuleela Estate Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5739/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 24

…perty‟. 27. The ld. CIT(A) has allowed the claim of the assessee relying upon the decision of the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Runwal Developers (P) Ltd, [2011] 15 taxmann.com 196 (Bombay) and DCIT vs Arham IT Infrastructure (P) Ltd, [2021] 190 ITD 657 (Delhi - Trib.). The CIT(A) observed that the common maintenance charges for which recovery has been made from the occupants has been offered as business income and the short fall of Rs. 1,47,25,623/- reimbursement receipts has not been claimed as a loss but has been disallowed while computing the business income. Hence, the CIT(A) directed the A…

196 (Bombay) and DCIT v. Arham IT Infrastructure (P) Ltd. (190 ITD 657) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax