How many judgments cite Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. v. CIT?

381 judgments on BharatTax cite Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. v. CIT (373 ITR 673), spanning 2011 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 1961, Section 14A, Section 22, Section 24, Section 23.

Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. v. CIT

373 ITR 673Supreme Court of India2015#189 most cited

What is Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Income from immovable property, such as unsold flats or shops, held by an assessee as stock-in-trade in their business of acquiring and holding properties is taxable as 'business income' and not 'income from house property'. Consequently, notional annual letting value under Section 23 cannot be attributed to such stock-in-trade.

381

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. v. CIT · Section 22 · Section 23 · business income · house property income · stock-in-trade · unsold flats · annual letting value · ALV · property developer

Also reported as

56 Taxmann.com 456

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 1961 Section 14A Section 22 Section 24 Section 23 Section 263 Section 32

Issues it is cited on

annual letting value section 23(1)annual value house property income section 35d section 22 put to use section 45 section 35 profits and gains of business or profession section 32 revenue expenditure

Judgments citing Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. v. CIT

GOPAL MUWEL,MANAWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHAR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 554/IND/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshigopal Muwel, Ito बनाम/ Morad, Manawar, Dhar Vs. Dhar (Pan: Caapm6256Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Lucky Singhal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 27.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 06.02.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 253Section 44ASection 57

…or detailed expense scrutiny OR maintenance of books. 3. machinery (along with driver and operator services) constitutes a systematic business. As held in Rayala Corporation Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (SC, 2016) and Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. v. CIT [2015] 373 ITR 673 (SC), classification of income should Income from Renting Activity Is in the Nature of Business-Although the income was declared under "Other Sources" due to earlier reporting consistency, the activity of renting out plant and follow the real nature of the activity, not its label in the return. 4.Violation of Natural Justice and Disproportionate…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I NOIDA, NOIDA vs. M/S ADVANT IT PARK PRIVATE LIMITED , DELHI

Appeal is allowed and order of the High Court is set aside

ITA 5334/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.5332/Del/2025 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17) ITA No.5333/Del/2025 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18) ITA No.5334/Del/2025 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2018-19) Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Noida. (Appellant) M/s Advant IT Park Private Ltd. R-99F, Second Floor, Near Vs. Metro Station, Dilshad Garden, East Delhi-110095, New Delhi. PAN-AAFCA0572P (Respondent) C.O No.221/Del/2025 Arising out of ITA No.5332/Del/2025 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17) C.O No.222/Del/2025 Arisi…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, NOIDA, NOIDA vs. M/S ADVANT IT PARK PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 5332/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.5332/Del/2025 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17) ITA No.5333/Del/2025 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18) ITA No.5334/Del/2025 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2018-19) Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Noida. (Appellant) M/s Advant IT Park Private Ltd. R-99F, Second Floor, Near Vs. Metro Station, Dilshad Garden, East Delhi-110095, New Delhi. PAN-AAFCA0572P (Respondent) C.Ο No.221/Del/2025 Arising out of ITA No.5332/Del/2025 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17) C.O No.222/Del/2025 Arisi…

VEERPRABHU AUTO PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CC - 2(4), KOL, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1218/KOL/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2026AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.:1218/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Veerprabhu Auto Pvt. Ltd. A.C.I.T., CC-2(4), Kolkata Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AAACL4493K Appearances: Assessee represented by : None. Department represented by : Sandip Sarkar, JCIT, Sr. DR. Date of concluding the hearing : 28-October-2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 12-January-2026 ORDER PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income…

DCIT, CIRCLE -3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. NORD ANGLIA EDUCATION INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue, viz

ITA 314/VIZ/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.

For Appellant: 1.Shri Karnjot Singh KhuranaFor Respondent: Shri Badicala Yadagiri, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

…placed on Hon’ble Supreme High court ruling in case of PCIT vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd (107 com 375). Appellant also relied on various judgments which are summarized below: Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in case of Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd vs CIT (373 ITR 673 ) wherein Hon’ble Court held that where the main object of assessee-company was to acquire properties and earn income by letting out same, said income was to be brought to tax as business income and not as income from house property. It also relied on Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in case of Rayala Corporation (P.) Ltd. Vs ACIT (386 ITR 500) whe…

DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. NORD ANGLIA EDUCATION INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue, viz

ITA 206/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.

For Appellant: 1.Shri Karnjot Singh KhuranaFor Respondent: Shri Badicala Yadagiri, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

H & M HOUSING FINANCE AND LEASING PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, ground No. 1 and 2 of the assessee‟s appeal is allowed

ITA 1332/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanassessment Year : 2017-18 H&M Housing Finance & Deputy Commissioner Of Leasing Private Limited, Income Tax, C/62, 9Th Floor, Vibgyor Towers, Vs. Circle–7(1)(2), Bandra Kurla Complex, Aayakar Bhavan, Bandra (East), M.K.Road, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400020. Pan : Aabch4398E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nitesh Joshi & Shri Nishith Khatri Revenue By : Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi and Shri Nishith KhatriFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr.DR

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “E” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2017-18 H&M Housing Finance and Deputy Commissioner of Leasing Private Limited, Income Tax, C/62, 9th Floor, Vibgyor Towers, vs. Circle–7(1)(2), Bandra Kurla Complex, Aayakar Bhavan, Bandra (East), M.K.Road, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400020. PAN : AABCH4398E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Nitesh Joshi and Shri Nishith Khatri Revenue by : Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 01-08-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 15-09-2025 O R…

M/S. CHENNAI BUSINESS TOWER PVT. LTD.,KANCHIPURAM vs. PCIT-4, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1570/CHNY/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1570/Chny/2025, धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 M/S. Chennai Business Tower Pcit-4, Private Limited (Formerly Known Vs Chennai. As Rmz Infinity (Chennai) Pvt. . Ltd), 110, Mount Poonamallee Road, Porur, Porur S.O. Kanchipuram – 600 116. [Pan:Aaacd-2287-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, Fca. प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. R. Raghupathy, Addl. Cit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12.09.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am:

For Appellant: Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri. R. Raghupathy, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 24Section 263

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ‘ए’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI श्री एबी टी वर्की, न्यायिर्क सदस्य एवं श्री एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.: 1570/Chny/2025, धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 M/s. Chennai Business Tower PCIT-4, Private Limited (formerly known vs Chennai. as RMZ infinity (Chennai) Pvt. . Ltd), 110, Mount Poonamallee Road, Porur, Porur S.O. Kanchipuram – 600 116. [PAN:AAACD-2287-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appel…

ARUN ENGINEERING UDYOG PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL) - 2, , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 786/KOL/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Sept 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2021-22 Arun Engineering Udyog Pvt. Ltd……………………………….……….……Appellant 151/A, Cotton Street, Burrabazar, Kol - 700007. [Pan: Aalca8127A] Vs. Pcit(Central)-2, Kolkata…………………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Raja Sengupta, Cit- Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 04, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 11, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 14.02.2025 Of The Principal Cit(Central), Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Ld. Pcit”] Exercising His Revision Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”].

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 263

…V for the assessment year 2021-22. He has cited a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sultan Bros. (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (1964) 5 SCR 807 and also filed a decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Chennai Properties & Investment Ltd., reported in 373 ITR 673 and in the case of Royla Corporation Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (2016) 386 ITR 500 (SC). 2 Arun Engineering Udyog Pvt. Ltd 3.1 So far as the submission of the unsecured loan taken is concerned, the submission of the ld. AR is that in the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee furnished documentary evidences such as source of fund, loan confirmat…

DECORUM INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL) - 2, , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 785/KOL/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Sept 2025AY 2021-2022

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 263

…eated as income\nfrom business. He has cited a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the\ncase of Sultan Bros. (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (1964) 5 SCR 807 and also filed a\ndecision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chennai Properties &\nInvestment Ltd., reported in 373 ITR 673 and in the case of Royla\nCorporation Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (2016) 386 ITR 500 (SC).\n3.1 So far as the issue regarding of the unsecured loan taken, the\nsubmission of the ld. AR is that in the course of assessment proceedings,\nthe assessee furnished documentary evidences such as source of fund,\nloan confirmation, copy of bank statement, audited f…

ARIHANT DEVELOPERS ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -1, KALYAN

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are\ndismissed

ITA 3398/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: \nShri K. Gopal & Akhilesh Deshmukh, ARsFor Respondent: \nShri Aditya Rai (Sr. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 22Section 24

…ing the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case\nof Ansal Housing Finance & Leasing Co. Ltd. (supra) which the AO relied\nupon and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chennai\nProperties & Investments Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 373 ITR 673, held that\nunsold flats which are in stock in trade should be assessed under the head\nPage 35\nITA No. 3395, 3396, 3397, 3398/Mum/2024\nΑ.Υ. 2012-13, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18\nArihant Developers, Mumbai\n„business income and there is no justification in estimating rental income\nfrom those flats and notionally computing annual letting value un…

ARIHANT DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -1, KALYAN

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are\ndismissed

ITA 3397/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: \nShri K. Gopal & Akhilesh Deshmukh, ARsFor Respondent: \nShri Aditya Rai (Sr. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 22Section 24

…ing the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case\nof Ansal Housing Finance & Leasing Co. Ltd. (supra) which the AO relied\nupon and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chennai\nProperties & Investments Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 373 ITR 673, held that\nunsold flats which are in stock in trade should be assessed under the head\n„business income and there is no justification in estimating rental income\nfrom those flats and notionally computing annual letting value under Section\n23 of the Act. While holding so the Coordinate Bench observed as under: -\n“3. The ld. AR placed the order…

ARIHANT DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -1, KALYAN

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are\ndismissed

ITA 3396/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: \nShri K. Gopal & Akhilesh Deshmukh, ARsFor Respondent: \nShri Aditya Rai (Sr. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 22Section 24

…ing the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case\nof Ansal Housing Finance & Leasing Co. Ltd. (supra) which the AO relied\nupon and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chennai\nProperties & Investments Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 373 ITR 673, held that\nunsold flats which are in stock in trade should be assessed under the head\n„business income and there is no justification in estimating rental income\nfrom those flats and notionally computing annual letting value under Section\n23 of the Act. While holding so the Coordinate Bench observed as under: -\n“3. The ld. AR placed the order…

ARIHANT DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -1 , KALYAN

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are\ndismissed

ITA 3395/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

For Appellant: \nShri K. Gopal & Akhilesh Deshmukh, ARsFor Respondent: \nShri Aditya Rai (Sr. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 22Section 24

…ing the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case\nof Ansal Housing Finance & Leasing Co. Ltd. (supra) which the AO relied\nupon and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chennai\nProperties & Investments Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 373 ITR 673, held that\nunsold flats which are in stock in trade should be assessed under the head\n„business income and there is no justification in estimating rental income\nfrom those flats and notionally computing annual letting value under Section\n23 of the Act. While holding so the Coordinate Bench observed as under: - \n“3. The ld. AR placed the orde…

DOSTI REALTY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6128/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37(1)

…has been considered in para-4 after discussing the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Neha Builders Pvt. Ltd., [2008] 296 ITR 661 (Guj) and of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chennai Properties and Investment Ltd. vs. CIT(A) [2014] 377 ITR 673 (SC). In para-4, Hon'ble High Court of Bombay took note of the observation of para-8 of Neha Builders (supra) which is reproduced as under: “8. True it is, that income derived from the property would always be termed as 'income' from the property, but if the property is used as 'stock- in-trade', then the said property would become or partake th…

KERALA TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE PCIT , TRIVANDRUM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 443/COCH/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year:2018-19 Kerala Transport Development Finance .......... Appellant Corporation Limited, Thiruvananthapuram. Pan: Aabck1318F Vs.

For Appellant: Smt. Anoopa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Veni Raj, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 32

…pellant ie., BOT Project. There is a direct nexus between the rental income and the business activity of the appellant company and therefore, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chennai Properties & Investments Limited vs. CIT, 373 ITR 673, there cannot be two opinions that the income derived from rental income in the present case is assessable under the business head. In 7 Kerala Transport Development Finance Corporation Ltd vs. PCIT view of the above facts, the Ld. PCIT was not justified in exercising the powers of revision. Accordingly, we set-aside the order passed U/s. 263 of…

SHRI JAITESHWAR SEVA SANSTHAN,JODHPUR vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 344/JODH/2025[NA]Status: FixedITAT Jodhpur26 Jun 2025

Bench: Us By Challenging The Revisional Order.

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(4)Section 2(5)Section 263

…2 ITA 344/JODH/2024 Shree Ram Colloids Private Limited 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act by the National e-Assessment Centre, Delhi on 09/04/2021 and addition was made related to duty draw back not shown in the return of income amount to Rs.12,547/-. The Ld. PCIT by invoking provisions of section 263 issued notice to the assessee by treating this assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The 5 points was asked to explain by the Ld.PCIT in his impugned notice. But finally, related to two points for claiming of de…

SHREE RAM COLLOIDS PRIVATE LIMITED,JODHPUR vs. PRINCIPAL CIT(1), JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 344/JODH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeshree Ram Colloids Private Vs Principal Commissioner Of Income Limited, Tax (1), Jodhpur C-79, Mia, Phase-Ii, Jodhpur- 342 005 Pan: Aakcs5803L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Shree Ram Colloids Private vs Principal Commissioner of Income Limited, Tax (1), Jodhpur C-79, MIA, Phase-II, Jodhpur- 342 005 PAN: AAKCS5803L APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Amit Kothari, CA Respondent by : Shri Ajey Malik, CIT-DR Date of hearing : 28/05/2025 Date of pronouncement : 26/06/2025 O R D E R Per Anikesh Banerjee (JM): Instant appeal of the assessee was filed against the order of the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-1, Jodhpur (f…

HGP COMMUNITY PVT LTD (SUCCESSOR TO LAKE VIEW DEVELOPERS),MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 906/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘E‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.903/Mum/2025 & 904/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year :2015-16 & 2016-17) HGP Community Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Assistant (successor to Omega Commissioner of Associates) Income Tax 514, Dalamal Towers FPJ Central Circle Marg, Nariman Point 1(2) Mumbai – 400 021 PAN/GIR No.AADCH8389P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) ITA No.905/Mum/2025 & 906/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2016-17) HGP Community Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Assistant (successor to Lakeview Commissioner of Developers) Income Tax Centr…

HGP COMMUNITY PVT LTD (SUCCESSOR TO LAKE VIEW DEVELOPERS),MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 905/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

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

Showing 1–20 of 381 · Page 1 of 20

...