How many judgments cite Allied Motors (supra); CIT v. Podar Cement Pvt Ltd.?

244 judgments on BharatTax cite Allied Motors (supra); CIT v. Podar Cement Pvt Ltd. (226 ITR 625), spanning 2005 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Allied Motors (supra); CIT v. Podar Cement Pvt Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 250, Section 54, Section 143(1), Section 40A(7), Section 139(1).

Allied Motors (supra); CIT v. Podar Cement Pvt Ltd.

226 ITR 625Supreme Court of India1997#356 most cited

What is Allied Motors (supra); CIT v. Podar Cement Pvt Ltd. authority for?

Amendments to tax laws that are explanatory, declaratory, curative, or clarificatory in nature are judicially construed as retrospective, especially if they are intended to remedy unintended consequences.

244

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,164 Indian tax judgments — from 2005 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Allied Motors v CIT · CIT v Podar Cement · retrospective amendment · curative amendment · declaratory amendment · explanatory amendment · unintended consequences · tax law · assessment year

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 250 Section 54 Section 143(1)Section 40A(7)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144C(13)

Issues it is cited on

section 140a(1)section 215 section 207 section 2(43)section 262 section 209 section 2(1)section 208 section 210 section 115jaa section 140a minimum alternate tax

Judgments citing Allied Motors (supra); CIT v. Podar Cement Pvt Ltd.

Shri Chitrang M Dave, Vadodara vs. DCIT, International Taxation, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2627/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Aug 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Lalit P.Jain, Sr.DR

Section 54Section 54F

…ue is accepted, it would be a derogatory step. 10. Even when we look into the matter from another angle, facts remain that the assessee is the actual and constructive owner of the house. In CIT vs. Podar Cements (P) Ltd. & Etc. (1997) 141 CTR (SC) 67 : (1997) 226 ITR 625 (SC), the Supreme Court has also accepted the theory of constructive ownership. Moreover, s. 54F mandates that the house should be purchased by the assessee and it does not stipulate that the house should be purchased in the name of the assessee only. Here is a case where the house was purchased by the assessee and that too in his name and wife’s…

Smt. Uma Nandwani, Meerut vs. ITO, Meerut

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1413/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: S/Shri Rohit Tiwari & Shobhit TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, Sr.D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 54Section 54F

…accepted, it would be a derogatory step. 9 I.T.A. No.1413/Del/2016 10. Even when we look into the matter from another angle, facts remain that the assessee is the actual and constructive owner of the house. In CIT Vs. Poddar Cements (P) Ltd. & Ors., (1997) 226 ITR 625 (SC), the Supreme Court has also accepted the theory of constructive ownership. Moreover, Section 54F mandates that the house should be purchased by the assessee and it does not stipulate that the house should be purchased in the name of the assessee only. Here is a case where the house was purchased by the assessee and that too in his name and w…

The DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Aagam Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1762/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1762/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.DRFor Respondent: -None-

…essee-company before the CIT(A) in this respect: (i) MM Fisheries (P) Ltd. 277 ITR 204 (Del.). (ii)Tamilnadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT 249 ITR 214(SC) (iii)Mysore Minerals Ltd. vs. CIT 239 ITR 775(SC). (iv) CIT vs. Podar Cement (P.) Ltd. (1997) 226 ITR 625. (v) SBC (P) Ltd. in ITA No.6 (Bom) 1974-75, ITAT, Bombay (vi)Mohamed BuxShokat Ali 256 ITR 355 (Raj.) (vii) CIT vs. Salkia Transport Associates (1983) 33 CTR (Cal) 198: 1983) 143 ITR 39 (Cal): TC 27R.266 (viii) Continental Construction Ltd. vs. CIT (1990) 85 CTR (Del) 116: DCIT vs. Aagam Infrabuild Pvt.Ltd. Asst.Year – 2012-13 (1990) 185 ITR 17…

Thiruvananthapuram Road Development Co. Ltd, Orrissa vs. DCIT 14(3)(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is disposed of in terms of the order in ITA

ITA 622/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2010-11 Thiruvananthapuram Road Dcit-14(3)(1), Development Company Ltd. बनाम/ (Earlier Dcit-10(1), The Il & Fs Financial Centre, Room No.455, 4Th Floor, Vs. Plot No.C-22, Aayakar Bhavan, G Block, Bandra Kurla M. K. Road, Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400051 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aacct0547J Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit-14(3)(1), Thiruvananthapuram Road (Earlier Dcit-10(1), Development Company Ltd. बनाम/ Room No.455, 4Th Floor, The Il & Fs Financial Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Centre, Plot No.C-22, M. K. Road, G Block, Bandra Kurla Mumbai-400020 Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aacct0547J

Section 143Section 253Section 32

…l Highway Act, 1956 and National Highway Authorities of India Act, 1988 and various case laws including that are strongly relied upon by the Ld. A.R. e.g. Mysore Minerals Ltd. v. CIT [1999] 239 ITR 775/106 Taxman 166 (SC), CIT v. Podar Cement (P.) Ltd. [1997] 226 ITR 625/92 Taxman 541 (SC) and Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd. (supra), has held that the national highways vest in the Union of India and if the government for the purpose of development and maintenance of the whole or any part of the national highways enters into an agreement with private parties or that merely because the national highway is built, maintai…

DCIT 14(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Thirvanthapuram Road Development Company Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is disposed of in terms of the order in ITA

ITA 4346/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2018AY 2011-12

Section 143Section 253Section 32

Tamil Nadu Brick Industries, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

ITA 744/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 May 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.744/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 M/S. Tamilnadu Brick Industries, The Income Tax Officer, No. 47, Mangali Nagar 1St Street, Vs. Non Corporate Circle 8(1), Arumbakkam, Chennai 600 106. Chennai. [Pan: Aafft3643P] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vijay Kumar Punna, Jr. Standing Counsel सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 13.02.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.05.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Chennai, Dated 27.02.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: “1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Chennai Dated 27.02.2017 In I.T.A.No.07/Cit(A)-9/2016-17 For The Above Mentioned Assessment Year Is Contrary To Law, Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Punna

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(47)(v)

…the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer specifically invoked section 2(47)(v) of the Act holing the above agreement as part performance as per section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. The ld. CIT(A) observed that in the case of Podar Cements Pvt. Ltd., 226 ITR 625, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the owner is the person who is entitled to receive income from the property in his own right and the requirement of registration of the sale deed in the context of Section 22 is not warranted. Moreover, in the absence of any part performance as contemplated under section 53A of Transfer of Property Act, 1882,…

M/S Sonalac Paints and Coatings Limited, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, CPC (TDS), Vaishali Jurisdiction at ITO, TDS-1, Chandigarh

In the result, both appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 1158/CHANDI/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 May 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Smt. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Sonalac Paints & Coatings Ltd., Vs. The Dcit, Sco Plot No. 768, Indl. Area, Cpc(Tds),Vaishali , Phase-Ii, Chandigarh. Ghaziabad Pan No. Aaics4995D Current Jurisdiction: Ito(Tds-1)Chandigarh. & Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Nagpal Trading Co., Vs. The Dcit, Sco No. 1037, Sector 22-B, Cpc(Tds),Vaishali , Chandigarh. Ghaziabad Pan No. Aaefn0052F Current Jurisdiction: Ito(Tds-1)Chandigarh

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit AggarwalFor Respondent: Shri Manjit Singh, Sr.DR

Section 200ASection 234ESection 246A

…n the case of Fatheraj Singhvi & ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.289 CTR 602 (Kar) had ruled in favour of the assessee, that prior to 01.06.2015, no adjustment on account of fees u/s 234E could be made by the AO while processing returns u/s 200A of the (1997) 226 ITR 625 and CIT Vs Vegetable Products Ltd. 88 ITR 192 (1973). The ld. counsel for the assessee further stated that the CIT(A) had erred in dismissing the appeal stating that it is non-maintainable. Ld. counsel for the assessee pointed out that intimation made u/s 200A are appealable to the CIT(A) as per provisions of Section 246A of the Act, which o…

M/S Chill Point Engineers Pvt Ltd, Chandigarh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Gaziabad

In the result, all appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 961/CHANDI/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Apr 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Smt. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Chill Point Engineers P.Ltd., Vs. The Dcit, H.No. 2217, Hem Kutir, Cpc(Tds), Vaishali, Mani Majra, Ghaziabad Chandigarh. Current Jurisdiction: Pan No. Aabcc5144R Ito(Tds-1)Chandigarh. & Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit AggarwalFor Respondent: Smt. Chanderkanta, Addl. CIT

Section 200ASection 234ESection 246A

…nterpretation of Statute, where two views were possible on an issue, the view favourable to the assessee was to be taken. In this regard, ld. counsel for the assessee relied upon the decision of Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs Poddar Cement Pvt. Ltd. (1997) 226 ITR 625 and CIT Vs Vegetable Products Ltd. 88 ITR 192 (1973). The ld. counsel for the assessee further stated that the CIT(A) had erred in dismissing the appeal stating that it is non-maintainable. Ld. counsel for the assessee pointed out that intimation made u/s 200A are appealable to the CIT(A) as per provisions of Section 246A of the Act, which o…

DCIT, Circle, Patiala vs. M/S State Bank of Patiala, Patiala

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1325/CHANDI/2017[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Apr 2018AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Diva Singh & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Abrol

Section 14A

…e is no order of the jurisdictional High court cited by either by the appellant or the Assessing officer. It is an established law that when two views are possible then the view favourable to the assesse has to be taken namely in CIT vs. polar cement pvt.ltd. 226 ITR 625 (SC). In this case, most of the latest judgments are in favour of the assessee including the order of hon’ble Bombay High Court. The issue in the case of diebold system pvt. Ltd. pertains to commercial taxes not income tax. There for looking into entirety of facts of the case and respectfully following the decision of hon’ble Bombay high Court. I…

DCIT, Cir-26, Kolkata vs. M/S Tewari Warehousing Company, Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands allowed partly for statistical

ITA 1316/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Mar 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2010-11 Dcit, Circle-26 M/S Tewari Warehousing Co. बनाम / Aayakar Bhawan Hide Shed Dump, Old V/S. Dakshin, 2, Gariahat Goragacha Road, Kolkata-88 Road, (South), [Pan No.Aacft 5579 K] Kolkata-68 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri Arindam Bhattacherjee, Addl. Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Vikash Surana, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 31-01-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 16-03-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Revenue Is Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Kolkata Dated 14.03.2016. Assessment Was Framed By Jcit, Range- 53, Kolkata U/S 143(3)/144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 28.03.2013 For Assessment Year 2010-11. The Grounds Raised By The Revenue Per Its Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Directing To Assess The Entire Gross Receipts S Business Income & Allow Deductions As Per Section 28 To 43 Of The It Act When Rental Income Of Rs.2,31,00,000/- Was Already Included In The Gross Receipts. 2. That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Estimation Of Business Profits Of Rs.2,37,72,132/- Made By The Ao Though Rejection Of Assessee’S Books Of Account U/S 145(3) Considering The Facts Of The Case. 3. That The Ld. Cit(A)’S Order Is Contrary To The Law & Fact Of The Case. 4. The Appellant Craves Leaves To, Add To, Alter Or Modify Any One Or All Of The Grounds Of Appeal Mentioned Above.”

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 194Section 27Section 28

…e by the appellant and gone through the assessment order. The AO held godowns rents as income from pro!5~ft:y placing reliance on TDS made u/s 1941 and Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgement in the case Sambhu Investment and Poddar Cement reported in 263 ITR 143 and 226 ITR 625. The appellant explained that the appellant has not received pure rent and it is a complex commercial activities involved in storing blending and packaging. Therefore, the facts of the case relied upon by the AD are not applicable in the appellant's case. In the similar facts and circumstances Hon'ble ITAT Kolkata in the case of Dutta Properties…

Sanjeet Rajendra Gugale, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 386/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Mar 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.386/Pun/2017 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 वष"

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jha, JCIT

Section 54E

…was confirmed by the CIT(A) dismissing the appeal of the assessee. In Para No.8, CIT(A) discussed the Tribunal orders in the case of ACIT Vs. Rajkumar Jain & Sons (HUF) 19 taxmann 27, CIT Vs. C. Jaichander 370 ITR 0579 (Mad.), CIT Vs. Podar Cement Pvt. Ltd. 226 ITR 625, CIT Vs. Gold Coin Health Food Pvt. Ltd., Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. DCIT and Another 328 ITR 0081 and CIT Vs. Apar Industries Ltd. 323 ITR 0411 before rejecting the arguments of the assessee. Although the CIT(A) acknowledged the favourable judgment of Madras High Court in the case of C. Jaichander 370 ITR 0579 (Mad.) the CIT(A) hyperte…

Shri.Raghuram P Nambyar, Bangalore vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 2007/BANG/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Mar 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Respondent: Dr. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 54ESection 54F

…ions / exemptions under Section 54F and 54 EC of the Act in respect of their equal share of the sale consideration arising from sale of the aforesaid property. Strong reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Poddar Cements (226 ITR 625) (SC) in support of the proposition that in the context of Sec.22 of the Act, to tax the income, the owner is the person who is entitled to receive income from house property in his own right. Therefore, it is contended that in the light of the above cited decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court (supra), the assessee Smt. Veena Nambyar will also be th…

Oberoi Buildings and Investments Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-5, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1938/KOL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Feb 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…was treated by the AO under the head 'Income from house property' as against offered by the assessee under the head 'Income from business' leading to increase in assessed Income by Rs.6,43,482/- relying on the decision of CIT vs Poddar Cement Ltd reported in 226 ITR 625. The abovementioned disallowance was confirmed by the Hon’ble ITAT, Kolkata. The ld. AO opined that the appellant has furnished inaccurate particulars of income and accordingly passed an order u/s. 271(l)(c) of the Act levying 100% of the tax sought to be evaded as penalty u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act. During the penalty proceedings, the appellant po…

Tina Kapoor, Mumbai vs. ITO 26(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5663/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Ms. Tina Kapoor Ito-26(2)(1) Flat No. 4, Sanghi House, 94, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Vs. Nepean Sea Road, Road Mumbai-400006 Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aelpk9444F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Nitesh Joshi, Ar Revenue By : Mr. V. Justin, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 16/11/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/02/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Nitesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Mr. V. Justin, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 54

…ed documents are registered, the transfer will take place on the date of execution of documents and not on the date of registration of documents. It has been held so in Alapati Venkataramiah v. CIT (1965) 57 ITR 185 (SC), CIT v. Podar Cements Pvt. Ltd. (1997) 226 ITR 625 (SC) and CIT v. Vishnu Trading & Investment Co. (2003) 259 ITR 724 (Raj). We find that in the instant case the date of registration and payment of stamp duty in respect of Flat 2902 at RNA Mirage, Worli, Mumbai is 27.02.2007. The sale agreement is 10.03.2011. The date of registration and payment of stamp duty in the case of Flat 404 at Sterling W…

M/S Ram Krishan Associate P.Lt vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/732/2005HC Delhi31 Jan 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 22Section 260A

…nt taxable under the head Income from house property. The appellant was de- facto owner and the sub-license fees was nothing but rent. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Podar Cement (P.) Ltd., (1997) 226 ITR 625 (SC) and Raj ITA Nos. 731, 732 and 735 of 2005 Page 7 of 12 Dadarkar & Associates v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (2017) 394 ITR 592 (SC). 10. Chapter IV deals with computation of total income. Section 14 states that income chargeable to tax would be classified under the heads; (i) salary, (ii) income from house propert…

M/S Ram Krishan Associate P.Lt vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/735/2005HC Delhi31 Jan 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 22Section 260A

M/S Ram Krishan Associates P.L vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/731/2005HC Delhi31 Jan 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 22Section 260A

M/S Ram Krishan Associates vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA-735/2005HC Delhi31 Jan 2018

Section 22Section 260A

…nt taxable under the head Income from house property. The appellant was de- facto owner and the sub-license fees was nothing but rent. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Podar Cement (P.) Ltd., (1997) 226 ITR 625 (SC) and Raj 2018:DHC:768-DB ITA Nos. 731, 732 and 735 of 2005 Page 7 of 12 Dadarkar & Associates v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (2017) 394 ITR 592 (SC). 10. Chapter IV deals with computation of total income. Section 14 states that income chargeable to tax would be classified under the heads; (i) salary, (ii) income fr…

M/S Ram Krishan Associates vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA-732/2005HC Delhi31 Jan 2018

Section 22Section 260A

…nt taxable under the head Income from house property. The appellant was de- facto owner and the sub-license fees was nothing but rent. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Podar Cement (P.) Ltd., (1997) 226 ITR 625 (SC) and Raj 2018:DHC:766-DB ITA Nos. 731, 732 and 735 of 2005 Page 7 of 12 Dadarkar & Associates v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (2017) 394 ITR 592 (SC). 10. Chapter IV deals with computation of total income. Section 14 states that income chargeable to tax would be classified under the heads; (i) salary, (ii) income fr…

M/S Ram Krishan Associates vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA-731/2005HC Delhi31 Jan 2018

Section 22Section 260A

…nt taxable under the head Income from house property. The appellant was de- facto owner and the sub-license fees was nothing but rent. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Podar Cement (P.) Ltd., (1997) 226 ITR 625 (SC) and Raj 2018:DHC:767-DB ITA Nos. 731, 732 and 735 of 2005 Page 7 of 12 Dadarkar & Associates v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (2017) 394 ITR 592 (SC). 10. Chapter IV deals with computation of total income. Section 14 states that income chargeable to tax would be classified under the heads; (i) salary, (ii) income fr…