304 CTR 310 (Cal); CIT v. Gopal Purohit

150 ITR 310High Court1984#14951 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,631 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2023.

Judgments citing 304 CTR 310 (Cal); CIT v. Gopal Purohit

Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 2(3), Solapur vs. Shri. Ulhas Mallikarjun Patil, Solapur

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose in above terms

ITA 1751/PUN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.1751/Pun/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer, Shri Ulhas Mallikarjun Patil, Ward-2(3), Solapur, Vs Block No.3, Sunandan . Complex, Near Dayanand College, Ravivar Peth, Solapur – 413004. Pan: Akepp 1943 P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Krishna V Gujarathi – Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 05/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 06/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2013-14 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-7, Pune’S Order Dated 31.08.2018 Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-7/Wd- 2(3)/10434/2016-147, In Proceedings U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

Section 143(3)Section 24Section 50

…Vs. New India Industries Ltd. reported in 201 ITR 208. Apparently, the appellant is not the user of the building and the user was charitable trust who was running a school on rented premises. The Bombay High Court in case of Parekh Traders Vs. CIT reported in 150 ITR 310 has held that income from let out from godown earlier used by assessee would be income from property and not income from business. The intention of the appellant in respect of commercial exploitation of school building should be ITA No.1751/PUN/2018 for A.Y. 2013-14 (A) Shri Ulhas M. Patil discernible from records. It is also not apparent that t…

304 CTR 310 (Cal); CIT v. Gopal Purohit (150 ITR 310) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax