Bipin Vadilal Family Trust v. CIT

208 ITR 1005High Court1994#9060 most cited
12

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 147Section 148Section 22Section 23(1)Section 23(1)(a)Section 23(5)

Judgments citing Bipin Vadilal Family Trust v. CIT

SHREE INFRA,SURAT vs. PR. CIT-1, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 601/SRT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Suresh K Kabra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Aashish Pophare, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 23(1)Section 23(5)Section 263

…ted 27.01.2021, the total value of the 30 unsold flats in Phase 1 was reported as Rs. 5,68,25,456/-. Applying a deemed rental yield of 8.4% as per the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Shri Bipinbhai Vadilal Family Trust vs. CIT (1994) 208 ITR 1005, the notional rent was computed by PCIT at Rs. 47,73,338/-. The PCIT, after examining the records, held that the AO failed to make proper inquiries and passed the assessment order without applying his mind or the correct legal provisions, rendering the order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue within the meaning of section 2…

VAMONA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD ,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL -2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2507/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 22Section 23(1)Section 23(1)(a)Section 24Section 263

…h an intention of carrying on business but on the factum of ownership. Vamona Developers Pvt. Ltd. In the case of Radha Devi Dalmia vs. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 134 and the decision of the Gujarat High Court, in the case of Bipin Vadilal Family Trust vs. CIT(1994) 208 ITR 1005, wherein 5% of the cost of the house property is treated as value at which property might reasonably be expected to be let out during the year as per the section 23(1)(a) of the Act. Further, as per the case records, that the assessee has earned rental income out of building(in Pune) whose closing WDV as on 31.03.2013 is 2,87,03,25,402/- and the…

NMS ENTRPRISES ,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT -27, MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

ITA 1103/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shir Pavan Kumar Gadalenms Enterprises Vs. Pr. Cit – 27, Shop No. 1 & 2, Plot Room No. 401, 4Th No. 9, Sector No. 34, Floor, Tower No. 6, Kamothe, Vashi Rly Stn Navi Mumbai-410209 Commercial Complex, Navi Mumbai -400703 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aahfn9167A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Subodh Ratnaparkhi.Ar Respondent By : Dr. Mahesh Akhade.Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 19.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 25.01.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit)-27, Mumbai, Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Fallowing Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri. Subodh Ratnaparkhi.ARFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade.CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 23(1)(a)Section 24Section 263

…Section 23(1)(a) of the Act. 3. The annual value of the property has to be computed according to the annual rent which could be received in respect of the property. On the basis of decision of Gujarat High court in case of Bipin Vadilal Family Trust v/s. CIT[208 ITR 1005] 8% of the cost of the House Property is reckoned as value for which the property might reasonably be let out during the year as per Section 23(1)(a) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4. From foregoing discussion, it is clear that, by computing the value of unsold property @ 8% of the cost of property, which is the amount of closing stock, the deemed rent…

FILMKRAFT PRODUCTIONS (I) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 16(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee for Assessment Year 2011-12 & 2012-13 are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 5183/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Gubgotra, D.R

…ding of Assessing Officer get support from decision of Hon'ble ITAT in case of EMTICI Engineering Ltd. vs. ACIT(1991) 58 TTJ 27 (Ahmedabad)., ITO vs. Chem Mech Pvt. Ltd.(2002) 83 ITD 427 (Mum.)(ITAT) and Shri Bipinbhai Vadilal Family Trust No.1 vs. CIT (1994) 208 ITR 1005(Guj.). It is seen that same issue on same facts was there in the case of appellant for A.Y. 2011-12 & A.Y. 2012-13 which has been decided against the assessee by my Ld. Predecessor. However, in the appellant's case for A.Y. 2013-14 the Ld. ClT(A)-7, Mumbai decided the issue in favour of the appellant observing as under: "I have considered the a…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -16(1), MUMBAI vs. ANEES AHMED BAZMEE, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4631/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negiacit-16(1) Vs. Anees Ahmed Bazmee Room No.439 1502, Deep Tower Chs Aaykar Bhawan New Link Road, Oshiwara M.K.Road Andheri (West) Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 053 Pan/Gir No.Aakpb2402P Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 23Section 50C

…agar to 4% of 2 Anees Ahmed Bazmee book value from 8% of book value as adopted by the AO without appreciating the judicial precedence to that effect such as the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of BipinbhaviVadilal family Trust vs CIT(1994) 208 ITR 1005. 3. Whether on the facts, in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the Ld. , CIT(A) has erred in admitting additional evidence in the form of Valuation Report from the Government Approved Valuer during the course of the appellate proceedings in contravention of the provisions of Rule 45A of the I.T, Rules. 4. Whether on the facts, in the…

HRITHIK ROSHAN,MUMBAI vs. JOINT CIT RG 16(1), MUMBAI

Appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our above order

ITA 3513/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

For Appellant: K.Gopal & Neha Paranjpe, Ld. ARsFor Respondent: Manoj Kumar Singh, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 23(1)(a)Section 24

…ding of Assessing Officer get support from decision of Hon’ble ITAT in case of EMTICI Engineering Ltd. Vs. ACIT (1991) 58 TTJ 27(Ahmedabad)., ITO vs. Chem Mech Pvt.Ltd(2002) 83 ITD 427 (Mum). (ITAT) and Shri Bipinibhai Vadilal Family Trust No.1 vs. CIT (1994) 208 ITR 1005(Guj). As regards argument that these properties at 4th floor and 5th floor were being used for Dance, Dialogue, Fight, Stunt Music, Story sitting, rehearsals and meeting purposes, it is pertinent to mention that no evidence has been produced of such claim either before Assessing Officer or in appellate proceedings. Therefore, such claim lost its…

ASST CIT 16(2), MUMBAI vs. IQBAL M CHAGLA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5593/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Asstt. Commissioner Of Shri Iqbal M. Chagla, Income-Tax-16(2), C Block, 3Rd Floor, Room No. 440, 4Th Floor, Pallonji Mansion, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. New Cuffe Parade, Colaba, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400005 Pan: Aabpc2830K (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh (Dr) Assessee By : Ms. Aarti Sathe( Ar) Date Of Hearing: 17/08/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 17/08/2018

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Sathe( AR)For Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh (DR)
Section 143Section 14A

…s not let out and hence ‘expected reasonable rent’ was determined on the basis of material placed on record in the form of judicial pronouncements in Radha Devi Dalmiya Vs CIT (1980) 125 ITR 134 [All.] (HC) and Sri Bipinbhai Vadilal Family Trust Vs CIT (1994) 208 ITR 1005 [Guj] (HC) wherein the Courts laid down the ratio to determine the annual value in the event of lower municipal rateable value. 4. Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT (A) was justified in directing to delete the disallowance made u/s 14A read with Rule 8D without considering the ratio laid down by the Specia…

ASST CIT 16(2), MUMBAI vs. JANAK DILIP DWARKADAS, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2011-12 is dismissed

ITA 5200/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आिकर अपील सं./Ita No. 5200/Mum/2015 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) The Asst. Cit 16(2), Vs. Shri Janak Dilip Dwarkadas, Room No. 479, 4Th Floor, 3Rd Floor, Mulla House, Aayakar Bhavan, M.G. Road, Fort, Mumbai - 400001 M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaepd8303R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia (DR)
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 23(1)

…asonable rent within the meaning of section 23(1) of the IT Act in accordance with the decision of Hon,ble Allahabad High Court rendered in Radha Devi Dalmiya vs. CIT and the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Sri Bipinbhai Vadilal Family Trust vs. CIT 208 ITR 1005, the Ld. CIT (A) ought to have confirmed the action of the AO. 7. We have perused the material on record in including the cases relied upon by the authorities below. We find that the Ld. CIT (A) has directed the AO to compute the income in question on the basis of municipal ratable value in accordance with the decision of the Hon’ble High Court…

JASHVANT C. RAVAL,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 11(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6913/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Memebr आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 6913/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / / / / Assessment Year: 2010-11) वष" Jashvant C. Raval Asst. Commissioner Of It,11(2), बनाम/ बनाम बनाम बनाम Raval House, Aayakar Bhavan, 18Th Road, Khar West. M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 052. Mumbai-400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabpr 7548F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. Aarti Sathe ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Asghar Zain सुनवाई क" तारीख / : 08/06/2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तारीख / : 15/06/2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 01.09.2014 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 3, [Hereinafter Referred To As The Cit(A)] Relevant To Assessment Year 2010-11. 2 Jashvant C. Raval Vs. Acit 2. The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. “Accepting The Notional Rent Of Rs.4,00,000 (Raval House) & Rs.7,00,000 (Laburnum Lane House) For The Full Year On The Basis Of Ratio Of 8% Return

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti SatheFor Respondent: Shri Asghar Zain

…notional rent of Rs.4,00,000 (Raval House) and Rs.7,00,000 (Laburnum Lane House) for the full year on the basis of ratio of 8% return on investment laid down in Radha Devi Dalmiya Vs. CIT (1982) 125 ITR 134 and Bippinbhai Vadilal Family Trust Vs. CIT (1994) 208 ITR 1005, without going into the submissions made by the appellant. 2. Accepting as correct rent assessed by the AO from Raval House at Rs.400,000 for the whole Financial Year as against Rs.60,000, rent actually received by the assessee from the firm JCR & Co. for three months (let out period). 3. Accepting as correct rent assessed by the AO from Laburnu…

PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER vs. SRI. RAJEEV

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA/305/2015HC Karnataka23 Feb 2016

Bench: S.SUJATHA,JAYANT PATEL

Section 2(22)(e)Section 22Section 23Section 260

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL AND THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S SUJATHA ITA NO.305 OF 2015 Between 1.Principle Commissioner of Income Tax-4, C.R.Building, Queens Road, Bangalore. 2. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle -11 (5) Bangalore. ... Appellants (By Sri E.I.Sanmathi, Advocate) And Sri. Rajeev Chandrashekar, No.375, III block 13th Main, Koramangala, Bangalore-560 034 2 PAN No.ABHPC 1951E ... Respondent (By Sri S Parthasarathi, Advo…

D.C.I.T CIR - 56,KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs. SMT. SARITA ARORA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 118/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

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

Section 143(3)Section 41(1)Section 48

…Assessment year: 2009-2010 Page 4 of 11 order of ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of Usha Devi Agarwal –vs.- ITO reported in [1992] 41 ITD 85, and by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Shri Bipinbhai Vadilal Family Trust –vs.- CIT reported in [1994] 208 ITR 1005. 5. In the appellate proceedings, ld. A.R. on behalf of the assessee contended that the assessee has been receiving rent under the above head in terms of agreement. From the same tenants also, the assessee has all along been assessed in terms of the said agreement and the returns were accepted by the Revenue. Further, the ld. CIT(Appeals) has al…

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. SRI. RAJEEV CHANDRASEKHAR, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1440/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Feb 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri P. Dhivahar, Jt. CIT(DR)For Respondent: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, Advocate
Section 22Section 23

…the property at 8.5% on the total investments for the purpose of determination from house property u/s. 22 of the Act and in doing so, whether he was justified in following the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Bipin Bhai Vadilal Family Trust v. CIT, 208 ITR 1005. 3. The facts giving rise to the aforesaid issue are that the assessee who is an indivdiual, owned a property at 408, 2nd A Cross Road, 3rd Block, Kormangala, Bangalore - 560 034. The property was let out to Hindustan Infrastructure Projects & Engineering Pvt. Ltd. The assessee received a sum of Rs.9 lakhs as rents for letting out of the aforesa…