ACIT v. C.K. Malik

89 ITD 249Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2004#25811 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2023 to 2023.

Issues it is cited on

section 24aself occupied propertysection 23(1)(a)section 23(1)annual letting valuehouse property incomesection 22section 23section 26salarysection 153section 153a

Judgments citing ACIT v. C.K. Malik

Shivani Madan, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-05, New Delhi

In the result, the both the appeals of assessee are dismissed

ITA 657/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Sahil Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amitabh Kumar Sinha, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 153ASection 22Section 23(1)(a)Section 24a

…able, share of the assessee in the income from property being contribution of 5.4% only towards the purchase cost, can at best be brought to tax to the extent of 5.4% only. He relied on the decision of Allahabad Bench of Tribunal in ACIT vs. C.K. Malik (2004) 89 ITD 249 (Alld) and the decision of Calcutta High Court in CIT vs. Ajit Kumar Roy (2001) 252 ITR 468 (Cal). 9. The Ld. DR on the other hand submitted that ownership in the property is determined as per the mutation records. The sale deed nowhere specified the share of the co- owners. Therefore, share of co-owners is not ascertainable. Drawing our attention…

Shivani Madan, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-05, New Delhi

In the result, the both the appeals of assessee are dismissed

ITA 498/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Sahil Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amitabh Kumar Sinha, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 153ASection 22Section 23(1)(a)Section 24a

…able, share of the assessee in the income from property being contribution of 5.4% only towards the purchase cost, can at best be brought to tax to the extent of 5.4% only. He relied on the decision of Allahabad Bench of Tribunal in ACIT vs. C.K. Malik (2004) 89 ITD 249 (Alld) and the decision of Calcutta High Court in CIT vs. Ajit Kumar Roy (2001) 252 ITR 468 (Cal). 9. The Ld. DR on the other hand submitted that ownership in the property is determined as per the mutation records. The sale deed nowhere specified the share of the co- owners. Therefore, share of co-owners is not ascertainable. Drawing our attention…

Shivani Madan, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-05, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1642/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Sahil Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary,CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 22Section 23Section 23(1)(a)Section 24aSection 250

…able, share of the assessee in the income from property being contribution of 5.4% only towards the purchase cost, can at best be brought to tax to the extent of 5.4% only. He relied on the decision of Allahabad Bench of Tribunal in ACIT vs. C.K. Malik (2004) 89 ITD 249 (Alld) and the decision of Calcutta High Court in CIT vs. Ajit Kumar Roy (2001) 252 ITR 468 (Cal). 9. The Ld. DR on the other hand submitted that ownership in the property is determined as per the mutation records. The sale deed nowhere specified the share of the co-owners. Therefore, share of co-owners is not ascertainable. Drawing our attention…

ACIT v. C.K. Malik (89 ITD 249) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax