504 (Del.) (iv) Vikas Keshav Garud vs. ITO, 160 ITD 7 (Pune-Trib.) (v) S.M. Chandrashekar v. ITO

151 ITR 19High Court1985#15016 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 1961 - Sections 14ASection 1962 - Rule 8DSection 22Section 23Section 23(1)(c)Section 23(5)Section 80-IA(5)

Judgments citing 504 (Del.) (iv) Vikas Keshav Garud vs. ITO, 160 ITD 7 (Pune-Trib.) (v) S.M. Chandrashekar v. ITO

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S ANSAL HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2731/DEL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2007-08] Dcit, Vs Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd., Central Circle-20, Ugf-15, Indraprastha Building, 21, New Delhi. Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan-Aaaca0377R Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80Section 80I

…- Trib.) In the following cases, it has been held that where a residential property remained vacant throughout the year, annual letting value of such property shall be NIL in accordance with the provisions of section 23 (1)( c) of the Act • CIT v. Joy Jacob: 151 ITR 19 (Ker.) • Premsudha Exports (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT: 110 ITD 158 (Mum. Trib.) • Shakuntala Devi v. DDIT: 31 CCH 32 (Bang.) • Kamal Mishra v. ITO: 19 SOT 251 (Del.)(Further appeal dismissed by the High Court) • Ms. Priyananki Singh Sood v. ACIT: [2019] 174 ITD 371 (Delhi - Trib.) • ITO v. Metaoxide (P.) Ltd. - [2018] 170 ITD 235 (Mumbai - Trib.) • Raj Lan…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ANSAL HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION LTD., NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year 2006-07 is hereby allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1576/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year : 2004-05 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Acit, Central Circle-20, Ansal Housing & Construction New Delhi. Ltd., Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri S. K. Jain, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 35DSection 80I

…31 CCH 32 (Bang.) (ii) Kamal Mishra vs. ITO, 19 SOT 251 (Del.) (iii) ACIT vs. Dr. Prabha Sanghi, 139 ITD 504 (Del.) (iv) Vikas Keshav Garud vs. ITO, 160 ITD 7 (Pune-Trib.) (v) S.M. Chandrashekar vs. ITO, 76 taxman.com 278 (Bang.-Trib.) (vi) CIT vs. Joy Jacob, 151 ITR 19 (Kerala) 35. Ld. counsel further pointed out that the properties at Sl. Nos.12, 13 and 14 were merely farm lands, on which no residential unit has been constructed. Accordingly, annual letting value cannot be determined in respect of such farm lands in terms of section 22 of the Act. 36. We have considered the submissions of both the parties a…

THE ACIT.,, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ANSAL HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year 2006-07 is hereby allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1254/DEL/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year : 2004-05 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Acit, Central Circle-20, Ansal Housing & Construction New Delhi. Ltd., Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri S. K. Jain, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 35DSection 80I

…31 CCH 32 (Bang.) (ii) Kamal Mishra vs. ITO, 19 SOT 251 (Del.) (iii) ACIT vs. Dr. Prabha Sanghi, 139 ITD 504 (Del.) (iv) Vikas Keshav Garud vs. ITO, 160 ITD 7 (Pune-Trib.) (v) S.M. Chandrashekar vs. ITO, 76 taxman.com 278 (Bang.-Trib.) (vi) CIT vs. Joy Jacob, 151 ITR 19 (Kerala) 35. Ld. counsel further pointed out that the properties at Sl. Nos.12, 13 and 14 were merely farm lands, on which no residential unit has been constructed. Accordingly, annual letting value cannot be determined in respect of such farm lands in terms of section 22 of the Act. 36. We have considered the submissions of both the parties a…

ANSAL HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year 2006-07 is hereby allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1248/DEL/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year : 2004-05 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Acit, Central Circle-20, Ansal Housing & Construction New Delhi. Ltd., Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri S. K. Jain, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 35DSection 80I

…31 CCH 32 (Bang.) (ii) Kamal Mishra vs. ITO, 19 SOT 251 (Del.) (iii) ACIT vs. Dr. Prabha Sanghi, 139 ITD 504 (Del.) (iv) Vikas Keshav Garud vs. ITO, 160 ITD 7 (Pune-Trib.) (v) S.M. Chandrashekar vs. ITO, 76 taxman.com 278 (Bang.-Trib.) (vi) CIT vs. Joy Jacob, 151 ITR 19 (Kerala) 35. Ld. counsel further pointed out that the properties at Sl. Nos.12, 13 and 14 were merely farm lands, on which no residential unit has been constructed. Accordingly, annual letting value cannot be determined in respect of such farm lands in terms of section 22 of the Act. 36. We have considered the submissions of both the parties a…

ANSAL HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CC-20, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year 2006-07 is hereby allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3193/DEL/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2017AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year : 2004-05 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Acit, Central Circle-20, Ansal Housing & Construction New Delhi. Ltd., Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri S. K. Jain, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 35DSection 80I

…31 CCH 32 (Bang.) (ii) Kamal Mishra vs. ITO, 19 SOT 251 (Del.) (iii) ACIT vs. Dr. Prabha Sanghi, 139 ITD 504 (Del.) (iv) Vikas Keshav Garud vs. ITO, 160 ITD 7 (Pune-Trib.) (v) S.M. Chandrashekar vs. ITO, 76 taxman.com 278 (Bang.-Trib.) (vi) CIT vs. Joy Jacob, 151 ITR 19 (Kerala) 35. Ld. counsel further pointed out that the properties at Sl. Nos.12, 13 and 14 were merely farm lands, on which no residential unit has been constructed. Accordingly, annual letting value cannot be determined in respect of such farm lands in terms of section 22 of the Act. 36. We have considered the submissions of both the parties a…

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

…his regard is also made to the decisions in Mangaldas H. Verma vs. CIT [1980] 124 ITR 185 (Bom); CIT vs. Pradeepkumar M. Shah [1981] 130 ITR 118 (Ker-FB); Sachin Barick General Enterprises (P) Ltd. vs. ITO [1984] 147 ITR 778 (Cal); CIT vs. Joy P. Jacob [1985] 151 ITR 19 (Ker); CIT vs. K. A. Vamana Pai [1986] 158 ITR 211 (Ker). The observations by the Hon’ble Patna High Court in Maharajadhiraj of Darbhanga vs. CIT AIR (1931) Pat. 223 to the effect that the provision is applicable only to those cases in which the house property is habitually let to tenants, and the vacancies referred to are vacancies falling betwee…

504 (Del.) (iv) Vikas Keshav Garud vs. ITO, 160 ITD 7 (Pune-Trib.) (v) S.M. Chandrashekar v. ITO (151 ITR 19) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax