2003 ITR 481 and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Indra Co. Ltd.

268 ITR 240High Court2004#11400 most cited
9

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2022.

Judgments citing 2003 ITR 481 and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Indra Co. Ltd.

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax -3 (1), Indore vs. M/S M.P. Entertainment and Developers Private Limited, Indore

ITA 203/IND/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kamal Garg & Arpit GaurFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mitra, CIT-DR
Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 22Section 23Section 28

…o show that rent over and above what was declared was realized, then no addition is warranted. 5.04 Reliance is also placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) CIT & Anr. vs. Dr. M.J. Mohan (2010) 320 ITR 0368 (Kar.) ii) CIT vs. Indra Co. Ltd. (2004) 268 ITR 240 (Cal) iii) John Tinson & Co. (P) Ltd. & Ors. Vs. CIT & Ors. (2008) 298 ITR 407 (Del.) iv) Vimal R. Ambani vs. DC1T(2015) 375 ITR 66 (Bom.) In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, it is submitted that the action of the learned AO in estimating the lease rental of the appellant company being exorbitantly high, hypothetical, unjust…

The DCIT-3(1), Indore vs. M/S. M.P. Entertainment & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Indore

ITA 344/IND/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kamal Garg & Arpit GaurFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mitra, CIT-DR
Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 22Section 23Section 28

…o show that rent over and above what was declared was realized, then no addition is warranted. 5.04 Reliance is also placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) CIT & Anr. vs. Dr. M.J. Mohan (2010) 320 ITR 0368 (Kar.) ii) CIT vs. Indra Co. Ltd. (2004) 268 ITR 240 (Cal) iii) John Tinson & Co. (P) Ltd. & Ors. Vs. CIT & Ors. (2008) 298 ITR 407 (Del.) iv) Vimal R. Ambani vs. DC1T(2015) 375 ITR 66 (Bom.) In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, it is submitted that the action of the learned AO in estimating the lease rental of the appellant company being exorbitantly high, hypothetical, unjust…

The DCIT-3(1), Indore vs. M/S. M.P. Entertainment & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Indore

ITA 118/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kamal Garg & Arpit GaurFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mitra, CIT-DR
Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 22Section 23Section 28

…o show that rent over and above what was declared was realized, then no addition is warranted. 5.04 Reliance is also placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) CIT & Anr. vs. Dr. M.J. Mohan (2010) 320 ITR 0368 (Kar.) ii) CIT vs. Indra Co. Ltd. (2004) 268 ITR 240 (Cal) iii) John Tinson & Co. (P) Ltd. & Ors. Vs. CIT & Ors. (2008) 298 ITR 407 (Del.) iv) Vimal R. Ambani vs. DC1T(2015) 375 ITR 66 (Bom.) In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, it is submitted that the action of the learned AO in estimating the lease rental of the appellant company being exorbitantly high, hypothetical, unjust…

The DCIT-3(1), Indore vs. M/S. M.P. Entertainment & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Indore

ITA 117/IND/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kamal Garg & Arpit GaurFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mitra, CIT-DR
Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 22Section 23Section 28

…o show that rent over and above what was declared was realized, then no addition is warranted. 5.04 Reliance is also placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) CIT & Anr. vs. Dr. M.J. Mohan (2010) 320 ITR 0368 (Kar.) ii) CIT vs. Indra Co. Ltd. (2004) 268 ITR 240 (Cal) iii) John Tinson & Co. (P) Ltd. & Ors. Vs. CIT & Ors. (2008) 298 ITR 407 (Del.) iv) Vimal R. Ambani vs. DC1T(2015) 375 ITR 66 (Bom.) In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, it is submitted that the action of the learned AO in estimating the lease rental of the appellant company being exorbitantly high, hypothetical, unjust…

Oberoi Hotels Private Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 8(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1667/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 May 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri S.S. Godara, Jm] I.T.A. Nos. 1626 & 1627/Kol/2018 Assessment Year 2012-13 & 2013-14 D.C.I.T., Circle 8(2) Kolkata..............................…………………………….............................Appellant P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700069. Vs M/S. Oberoi Hotels Pvt. Ltd.....................…………………................................................Respondent 4, Mangoe Lane, 6Th Floor, Kolkata – 700 001. [Pan: Aaaco 3408 K]

Section 14A

…t factor for valuation and not the rent revealed from the market search. The authorities on this point are Commissioner of Income Tax vs Kishanlal and Sons (Udyog) Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2003 ITR 481 and Commissioner of Income Tax vs Indra Co. Ltd. reported in 268 ITR 240. The point urged by the Revenue is thus covered. We decline to admit the appeal of the Revenue on this point also.” As the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) applies the proposition of law laid down in this judgement, we uphold the same and dismiss this ground of the Revenue. 4 I.T.A. Nos. 1626, 1627, 1666 & 1667/Kol/2018 Oberoi Hotels Pvt. Ltd.…

Oberoi Hotels Private Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 8(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1666/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 May 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri S.S. Godara, Jm] I.T.A. Nos. 1626 & 1627/Kol/2018 Assessment Year 2012-13 & 2013-14 D.C.I.T., Circle 8(2) Kolkata..............................…………………………….............................Appellant P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700069. Vs M/S. Oberoi Hotels Pvt. Ltd.....................…………………................................................Respondent 4, Mangoe Lane, 6Th Floor, Kolkata – 700 001. [Pan: Aaaco 3408 K]

Section 14A

…t factor for valuation and not the rent revealed from the market search. The authorities on this point are Commissioner of Income Tax vs Kishanlal and Sons (Udyog) Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2003 ITR 481 and Commissioner of Income Tax vs Indra Co. Ltd. reported in 268 ITR 240. The point urged by the Revenue is thus covered. We decline to admit the appeal of the Revenue on this point also.” As the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) applies the proposition of law laid down in this judgement, we uphold the same and dismiss this ground of the Revenue. 4 I.T.A. Nos. 1626, 1627, 1666 & 1667/Kol/2018 Oberoi Hotels Pvt. Ltd.…

DCIT, Circle - 8(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Oberoi Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1627/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 May 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri S.S. Godara, Jm] I.T.A. Nos. 1626 & 1627/Kol/2018 Assessment Year 2012-13 & 2013-14 D.C.I.T., Circle 8(2) Kolkata..............................…………………………….............................Appellant P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700069. Vs M/S. Oberoi Hotels Pvt. Ltd.....................…………………................................................Respondent 4, Mangoe Lane, 6Th Floor, Kolkata – 700 001. [Pan: Aaaco 3408 K]

Section 14A

…t factor for valuation and not the rent revealed from the market search. The authorities on this point are Commissioner of Income Tax vs Kishanlal and Sons (Udyog) Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2003 ITR 481 and Commissioner of Income Tax vs Indra Co. Ltd. reported in 268 ITR 240. The point urged by the Revenue is thus covered. We decline to admit the appeal of the Revenue on this point also.” As the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) applies the proposition of law laid down in this judgement, we uphold the same and dismiss this ground of the Revenue. 4 I.T.A. Nos. 1626, 1627, 1666 & 1667/Kol/2018 Oberoi Hotels Pvt. Ltd.…

DCIT, Circle - 8(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Oberoi Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1626/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 May 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri S.S. Godara, Jm] I.T.A. Nos. 1626 & 1627/Kol/2018 Assessment Year 2012-13 & 2013-14 D.C.I.T., Circle 8(2) Kolkata..............................…………………………….............................Appellant P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700069. Vs M/S. Oberoi Hotels Pvt. Ltd.....................…………………................................................Respondent 4, Mangoe Lane, 6Th Floor, Kolkata – 700 001. [Pan: Aaaco 3408 K]

Section 14A

…t factor for valuation and not the rent revealed from the market search. The authorities on this point are Commissioner of Income Tax vs Kishanlal and Sons (Udyog) Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2003 ITR 481 and Commissioner of Income Tax vs Indra Co. Ltd. reported in 268 ITR 240. The point urged by the Revenue is thus covered. We decline to admit the appeal of the Revenue on this point also.” As the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) applies the proposition of law laid down in this judgement, we uphold the same and dismiss this ground of the Revenue. 4 I.T.A. Nos. 1626, 1627, 1666 & 1667/Kol/2018 Oberoi Hotels Pvt. Ltd.…

Nanavati Constructions, Mumbai vs. DCIT 20(2), Mumbai

The appeal stands allowed

ITA 2631/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2631/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2632/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2633/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Nanavati Constructions Dcit-24(3) बनाम/ 52, Sarvodaya Industrial Estate Piramal Chambers, Lalbaugh Mahakali Caves Road Parel Vs. Andheri(E), Mumbai-400 093. Mumbai- 400 012. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaffn-9695-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri B.V. Jhaveri-Ld.Ar Revenue By : Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 29/01/2020 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 13/03/2020 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri B.V. Jhaveri-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik-Ld. DR

…al income in the hands of the assessee, the assessee, inter-alia, relied upon the decision of Bombay High Court rendered in Akshay Textiles Trading Agencies Pvt Ltd. (304 ITR 401) and also on the decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in CIT V/s Indra & Co. (268 ITR 240) for the submissions that only the actual rent received by the assessee was to be brought to tax. The attention was drawn to the fact the leave and license agreement was entered with 6 persons on 20/04/2009 which was much before subsequent leave and license agreement entered into by the assessee and other 6 persons with M/s DFIRPL. It was submitt…

2003 ITR 481 and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Indra Co. Ltd. (268 ITR 240) — Cited in 9 Judgments | BharatTax