Aravali Engineers (P) Ltd. v. CIT

237 CTR 312Reported decision2011#13151 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also reported as

200 Taxmann 81335 ITR 508

Sections most often in play

Section 131 Section 143(3)Section 147 Section 148 Section 54B Section 54F

Judgments citing Aravali Engineers (P) Ltd. v. CIT

Raghav Kumar Dhoot, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle 1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 491/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT- DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 292BSection 68

…ng the jurisdiction. It is held by the Hon'ble P&H High Court in Aravali Engineers (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax [2011] 11 taxmann.com 291 (Punjab & Haryana)/[2011] 200 Taxman 81 (Punjab & Haryana) (Mag.)/[2011] 335 ITR 508 (Punjab & Haryana)/[2011] 237 CTR 312 (Punjab & Haryana) [09-12-2010] as under:- Section 292BB, read with section 143, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Notice, Deemed to Be Valid in Certain Circumstances - Assessment year 1997-98 In proceedings before Tribunal, assessee raised a new plea that since notice under section 143(2) was not served within stipulated time, assessment was barred by…

Shri Rattan Singh, Panipat vs. ITO, Panipat

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed

ITA 807/DEL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganeshrattan Singh, Vs. Ito, S/O. Shri Tek Chand, Ward-2, Panipat Village-Nizampur, Panipat (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aespc4005K Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement /04/2024

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54BSection 54F

…t submitted before the AO that such iqrarnama had been signed. The additional ground is accordingly based purely on facts and is not merely a legal ground. Hon'ble Jurisdictional Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Arawali Engineers Pvt. Ltd. CIT(2011) 335 ITR 508 held that no doubt an appellate authority can allow a question to be raised for the first time even if such question was not raised at lower forum, but such discretion has to be exercised in the interest of justice and not mechanically. The question of fact may not be allowed to be raised for the first time as it may lead to prejudice to other si…

Rockcastle Property Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT(A)-10, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 7377/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7377/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Rockcastle Property Private Ltd Ito-5(3)(1) 3Rd Floor, Sunama House Room No.21, 3Rd Floor B-Wing बनाम/ 140, August Kranti Marg Mittal Court, Nariman Point Vs. Opp. Shalimar Hotel, Kemps Corner Mumbai – 400 021. Mumbai – 400 026. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcr-9466-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Gopal Sharma-Ld. Ar Revenue By : Ms. Smita Verma – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 17/03/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 18/05/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Gopal Sharma-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Verma – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 23(1)(b)Section 24

…1 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “एक-सद" मामला” "ायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI माननीय "ी श""जीत दे, "ाियक सद" एवं माननीय "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल ,लेखा सद" के सम"। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7377/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Rockcastle Property Private Ltd ITO-5(3)(1) 3rd Floor, Sunama House Room No.21, 3rd Floor B-Wing बनाम/ 140, August Kranti Marg Mittal Court, Nariman Point Vs. Opp. Shalimar Hotel, Kemps Corner Mumbai – 400 021. Mumbai – 400 026.…

Mohd. Zammer Cutterwala, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 17(3), Mumbai

ITA 3314/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi-ARFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 54G

…ccasions, that even by filing the appeal before the Tribunal it had not raised the issue with regard to notice, that no new ground could be taken before the Tribunal for the first time.She referred to the cases of NTPC (supra), Aravali Engineers Private Ltd. (237 CTR 312), Vision Inc. (208 taxman 153), Madhya Bharat Energy Corporation (337 ITR 389) Jayprakash Singh (219 ITR 737).She stated that the AO had informed that on perusal of the records it was found that certain documents were not available on the file,namely-letter of objection to the reopening filed by the assessee, disposal of objection by the AO, noti…

M/S Stylish Construction Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2512/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 May 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishistylish Construction Pvt. Ltd, Dcit, 1027, Top Floor, Ward No. 8, Circle-9(1), Vs. Mehra Chowk, Mehrauli New Delhi Pan: Aaics4664H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. NK Bansal, Sr DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 73

…Stylish Construction Pvt Ltd V DCIT Circle 9 (1) New Delhi A Y 2008-09 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H. S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Stylish Construction Pvt. Ltd, DCIT, 1027, Top Floor, Ward No. 8, Circle-9(1), Vs. Mehra Chowk, Mehrauli New Delhi PAN: AAICS4664H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Sh. Ashwani Kumar, CA Revenue by: Sh. NK Bansal, Sr DR Date of Hearing 01/05/2017 Date of pronouncement 18/05/2017 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(…

Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd ( Formelry Zee Telefilms Ltd), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 11(1), Mumbai

ITA 7005/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2016AY 2006-07

For Appellant: S/Shri Anuj Kishnadwala & Jay Bhansali –ARsFor Respondent: Ms. Vidisha Kalra-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 36(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, , , , मुंबई “ जी” खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“G”Bench Mumbai सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" राजे"",लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं, राम लाल नेगी राम लाल नेगी, "याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं राम लाल नेगी राम लाल नेगी "याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य Before S/Shri Rajendra,Accountant Member and Ram Lal Negi,Judicial Member आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/ ITA No.7005/Mum/2012 : िनधा"रण अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Assessment Year-2006-07 वष" Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd. ADIT-Range-11(1) Room No.467, 4th Floor (Formerly Zee Telefilms…

Kantilal G Gowani (HUF), Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 12(3), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 7794/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Jason P. Boazkantilal G. Gowani (Huf) Acit, Circle-12(3) 501, Commerce House Room No. 1237, 1St Floor 140, N.M. Road, Fort Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai 400023 Mumbai 400020

For Appellant: Shri Vipul JoshiFor Respondent: Shri A. Ramachandran

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 23(1)Section 23(1)(b)Section 24

…paid to the caretaker cannot be taken into account.” For the reasons given earlier and respectfully following the aforementioned decision and also the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Aravali Engineers (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (2011) 237 CTR 312, the disallowance of service tax of `18,66,223/- made by the Assessing Officer is upheld. The ground of the appeal is dismissed.” 5 Kantilal G. Gowani (HUF) 3.2.3 Before us, the learned A.R. for the assessee basically reiterated the submission put forth the authorities below, i.e. at para 2.2 of the CIT(A)’s order and para 4.1 and 4.2 of of the…

Mystique Realty P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 3(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 7320/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.7320/Mum/2012 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2009-2010) Mystique Realty Pvt. Ltd., 1St Vs. Dcit-3(2), Mumbai Floor, Maker Tower, “F” Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaecm 7413 J (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Ms. Mrugakshi Joshi याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Aarsi Prasad सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/09/2015 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 20/11/2015 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M):

For Appellant: Ms. Mrugakshi JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad

Section 143(3)Section 23(1)(b)Section 24

…determined what deductions are to be made from income from house property are provided in s. 24. Thus, the while determining annual value. 9. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Aravali Engineers Pvt. Ltd., 335 ITR 508. Similar view has also been taken by the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Premnath Motors (Raj) Pvt. Ltd., 297 ITR 83. 10. In view of the above judicial pronouncements, we do not find any infirmity in the order of lower authorities for not allowing deduction on account of brokerage paid while computing income from house property u/s.23…