214 (Pune-Trib) and (2) ACIT v. Dr. Prabha Sanghi

110 TTJ 89Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2007#22004 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 341,001 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 23(1)(a)Section 23(1)(c)Section 250 Section 253(3)Section 270A

Judgments citing 214 (Pune-Trib) and (2) ACIT v. Dr. Prabha Sanghi

Classic Mall Development Company Limited, Mumbai vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 6(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2297/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shrisaktijit Dey, Vice-And Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Physical Hearing) Classic Mall Development Company Vs. Acit, Limited, Circle – 6(2)(1), C/O Market City Resources Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai Ground Floor, R. R. Hosiery Building, Shree Laxmi Woolen Mills Estate, Mahalaxmi - 400011 Pan/Gir No: Aaccc7309K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Vijay Mehta, Ca Respondent By Shri Rajendra Joshi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/05/2025

Section 23(1)(a)Section 23(1)(c)Section 250Section 253(3)Section 270A

…AT, Mumbai in case of Classic Mall Development Company Limited vs. ACIT, in ITA No.5320/Mum/2024, dated 21.03.2025 allowed the appeal of the assessee. He has further relied on the decisions of the various Tribunals, i.e., Premsudha Exports Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, 110 TTJ 89, ITO vs. Metaoxide P. Ltd., ITA No.4428/Mum/2016, ACIT vs. Dr. Prabha Sanghi, ITA No.2217/Del/2010, Informed Technologies India Ltd. vs. DCIT, ITA No.6466/Mum/2014, Sonu Realtors P. Ltd. vs. DCIT, ITA No.2892/Mum/2016, Priyananki Singh vs. ACIT, ITA No.6698/Del/2015 and ITA No.2297/Mum/2025/AY.2017-18 Classic Mall Development Company Ltd. The Ph…

Sita P. Gera, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2830/PUN/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 May 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Garg

Section 143(3)

…was unsuccessful, Ld. Counsel submitted for deleting the additions and relied heavily on the following decisions (1) Vikas Keshav Garud Vs. ITO 71 taxmann.com 214 (Pune-Trib) and (2) ACIT Vs. Dr. Prabha Sanghi 27 taxmann.com 317 (Delhi) 4.2 Ltd. Vs. ACIT 110 TTJ 89 (Mumbai) was closely applicable to the facts of the present case. However, the CIT(A) distinguished the same holding that the assessee did not file any evidence about the intention to let the said properties in the year under consideration. In this regard, assessee’s counsel drew my attention to Pages 6 & 8 and pages 4 Mrs. Poonam R. Sabunani,…

ITO 1(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Metaoxiide P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all these appeals are dismissed

ITA 4428/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri B.N. RaoFor Respondent: Shri Aarju Garodia

Section 23(1)(a)

…on of ALV under section 23(1)(c) of the Act. In support of such contention, the learned Authorised Representative relied upon the following decisions:– i) ACIT v/s Dr. Prabha Sanghi, [2012] 139 ITD 504 (Del.); ii) Premsudha Exports Pvt. Ltd. v/s ACIT, [2007] 110 TTJ 89 (Mum.); and iii) Can Properties Pvt. Ltd. v/s ITO, M.A. no.323/Mum./2017 dated 26.12.2017. 8. We have heard rival submissions and perused material on record. Undisputedly, the flats in respect of which the Assessing Officer has determined the ALV under section 23(1)(a) remained vacant during the relevant previous year. It is evident, the Assessing…