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#195 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 367,735 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

Hgp Community Pvt Ltd (Successor to Omega Associates), Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 1(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 904/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 Omega Associates), Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 1(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 903/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)

Hyderabad Infratech Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1856/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana &For Respondent: Ms. M. Narmada, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 92C

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad श्री रधिश सूद, न्‍याधयक सदस्‍य एिं श्री मिुसूदन सािधिया, लेखा सदस्‍य के समक्ष । BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अपी.सं /ITA-TP No.1856/Hyd/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2015-16) M/s. Hyderabad Infratech Private Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Vs. Limited, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. PAN:AACCH6263K (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee by: Shri T. Suryanarayana & Ms. Mahima Goud, Advocates रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue by: Ms. M. Narm…

DCIT, Range-3, Lucknow vs. M/S Welldone Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 406/LKW/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh.Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y.2017-18 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S Welldone Infrastructure Range-3, Lucknow Private Limited, Lucknow Pan:Aaacw6354Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. B.P. Yadav, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. Amit Singh Chauhan, Addl (Cit) & Sh. Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 10.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.04.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Lucknow Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Allowing The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Ao Under Section 143(3) On 19.12.2019. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Lucknow Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.2,26,72,571/- Without Appreciate The Fact That The Assessee Is Involved In The Business Of Developing Properties & Selling It & Is Earning Rental Income Which Is Incidental To The "Revenue From Business Operations" Of The Assessee. 2. Ld. Cit(A) Had Erred In Law & On Facts Ignoring The Fact That The Assessee, While Filing Original Return Of Income Had Itself Considered That Rental Are In The Nature Of Revenue From Business Operations.

For Appellant: Sh. B.P. Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Singh Chauhan, Addl (CIT) & Sh

Section 143(3)Section 22Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW ‘B’BENCH, LUCKNOW BEFORE SH.SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER A.Y.2017-18 Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s Welldone Infrastructure Range-3, Lucknow Private Limited, Lucknow PAN:AAACW6354Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Sh. B.P. Yadav, Advocate Revenue by: Sh. Amit Singh Chauhan, Addl (CIT) & Sh. Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl CIT (DR) Date of hearing: 10.02.2025 Date of pronouncement: 22.04.2025 O R D E R PER NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, A.M.: This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-2,…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1), Guntur vs. Bbm Estates Private Limited, Guntur

In the result, Revenue appeal is allowed and the C

ITA 185/VIZ/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam01 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri S. Balakrishnan.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.185/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Acit Vs. Bbm Estates (P) Ltd Circle 1(1) Guntur Guntur Pan: Aaace2607G (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O No.12/Viz/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1895/Viz/2024) Bbm Estates (P) Ltd Vs. Acit Guntur Circle 1(1) Pan: Aaace2607G Guntur (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri G.V.N. Hari, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Satyasai Rath, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 01/04/2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Satyasai Rath, DR

…ings noted that the assessee is in the business of real estate as well as leasing out/letting out of the property etc., and therefore, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd vs. CIT reported in 373 ITR 673, the rental income from the business of letting out the property to be assessed as business income and not as income from house property. The learned DR has further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Rayala Corporation (P) Ltd vs. ACIT reported in 386 ITR 500 has held that where the business of the company is to lease out its pro…

Bbr Projects Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part and for statistical purposes

ITA 367/HYD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Babu KN, Sr. AR

Section 115JSection 143(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI MANJUNATHA. G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आ.अपी.सं / ITA No. 367/Hyd/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) BBR Projects Private DCIT, Limited, Vs. Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. [PAN : AACCB7153J ] अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती‍द्वधरध/Assessee by: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, AR रधजस्‍व‍द्वधरध/Revenue by: Shri Suresh Babu KN, Sr. AR सुिवधई‍की‍तधरीख/Date of hearing: 02/01/2025 घोर्णध की‍तधरीख/Pronouncement on: 06/02/2025…

Jaiprakash Khanchand Aswani, Surat vs. ACIT, Circle-1(2), Surat.

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1130/SRT/2024[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Surat16 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Hybrid Hearing) Jaiprakash Khanchand Aswani, A.C.I.T., Top Floor, Ason City, City Light Circle-1(2), Vs. Road, City Light, Surat. Surat. Pan No. Aaspa 3016 C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

For Appellant: “1. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in not following the

Section 254(1)

…dering the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ansal Housing Finance & Leasing Co. Ltd. (supra) which the AO relied upon and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 373 ITR 673, held that unsold flats which are in stock in trade should be assessed under the head ‘business income’ and there is no justification in estimating rental income from those flats are notionally computing annual letting value under Section 23 of the Act. While holding so the Coordinate Bench observed as under :- “3. The ld. AR placed the order of…

Ferani Hotels Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 3859/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay SawantFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Heliwal, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 24Section 250Section 80

…ted the addition made by the A.O. towards deemed income from 'House Property' which was sustained by the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee further relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. Vs. CIT (2015) 377 ITR 673 (SC), had observed, that the income generated by an assessee who was engaged in the business of acquiring and holding properties from such source would be its "business income" and not its income under the head "house property". He further relied on decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT Vs. NehaBuilders (P) Ltd. (2008)…

The Commissioner of Income Tax III vs. M/S. Savijana Sea Foods Pvt. Ltd

ITTA/55/2010HC Telangana20 Dec 2024

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

Makewaves Sea Resorts Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3861/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhrimakewaves Sea Rsorts Pvt. V/S. Dcit, Circle – 4(3)(1) Ltd. बनाम 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Construction House – B, Mumbai-400020 2Nd Floor, 623, Linking Road, Khar(West), Mumbai-400052 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacm0673J Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Sanjaj B. SawantFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana

Section 143(3)Section 23(5)Section 250

…dering the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ansal Housing Finance & Leasing Co. Ltd. (supra) which the AO relied upon and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. us. CIT reported in 373 ITR 673, held that unsold flats which are in stock in trade should be assessed under the head 'business income' and there is no justification in estimating rental income from those flats and notionally computing annual letting value under Section 23 of the Act. While holding so the Coordinate Bench observed as under: - "3. The Id. AR placed the order of…

Palm Grove Beach Hotel Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -13(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 3858/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

…ITA no.3858/MUM/2024 Palm Grove Beach Hotel Pvt. Ltd. 2 annual letting value to 2.5% as against 8.5% determined vide assessment order dated 19.12.2019 as income from house property. 2. The brief facts related to the case state that the assessee is engaged in the business of development of housing complexes, industrial parks and runs five star hotels at Kodaikanal. Assessee e-filed return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 on 31.10.2017, declaring total income at a loss of Rs. 1,22,20,66,420/-. The case was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently the case was selected for scrutiny. Statutory notices u/s. 143(2) and…

Todi Industries Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer - 8(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 895/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 22Section 37

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘E‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.895/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year :2016-17) M/s. Todi Industries Vs. Income Tax Officer- Pvt. Ltd. 1st Floor, Todi Estate Sun Mill Compound Lower Parel (W) Mumbai Maharashtra-400 013 8(3)(2) Mumbai Aayakar Bhavan Mahirishi Karve Road Mumbai PAN/GIR No.AAACT4620Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Yogesh Thar a/w. Shri Urvashi Shah Revenue by Shri P.D. Chougule Date of Hearing 10/06/2024 Date of Pronouncement 21/08/2024 आदेश / O R DER PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.М): The a…

E M C Projects Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 7(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1063/KOL/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Aug 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 1063/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Emc Projects Pvt. Limited,………………..………Appellant 2, Robinson Street, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata-700017 [Pan:Aaace7218F] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,………Respondent Circle-7(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Jitendra Kantilal Surti, Jcit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 12, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 20, 2024 O R D E R

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

…er section 263 on 15.03.2019, copy of this order is available on pages no. 20 to 25 of the paper book. The ld. CIT took cognizance of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chennai Properties & Investment Limited -vs.- CIT reported in (2015) 373 ITR 673 (SC). He set aside the assessment order and directed the ld. Assessing Officer to re-adjudicate this issue. The conclusion of the ld. CIT in this order reads as under:- “6. After having considered the position of law and facts and circumstances of the instant case, the assessment order passed by the AO is found to be erroneous and prejudicial to…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. M2K Entertainment Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6725/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhasstt. Yr: 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(24)(x)Section 24Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Asstt. Yr: 2012-13 DCIT, Circle-16(1), Vs M2K Entertainment Pvt. Ltd., E-34, 2nd Floor, Connaught Circus, New Delhi. New Delhi-110001. PAN: AADCM 0608 C APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Shri Vartik Choksi, AR Department represented by Shri Amit Shukla, Sr. DR Date of hearing 08.08.2024 14.08.2024 Date of pronouncement O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, JM: This appeal, by the Revenue, is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax…

DCIT- 8(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Piramal Estates Private Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 2019/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Mr. Ronak Doshi a/w Priyank GandhiFor Respondent: Smt. Madhumalti Ghosh, CIT/DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 24Section 37

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.2018 & 2019/Mum/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2016-17 DCIT-8(2)(1), Mumbai Piramal Estates Private Limited 8th Floor, Piramal Tower, Vs. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai- 400013. PAN: AACCA 7777 K (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Mr. Ronak Doshi a/w Priyank Gandhi Revenue by : Smt. Madhumalti Ghosh, CIT/DR Date of Hearing : 30.05.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 O R D E R PER AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:…

DCIT- 8(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Piramal Estates Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 2018/MUM/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 24Section 37

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.2018 & 2019/Mum/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2016-17 DCIT-8(2)(1), Mumbai Piramal Estates Private Vs. Limited (Appellant) Present for: Assessee by Revenue by Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement ORDER PER AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: Both these appeals filed by the revenue are directed against different orders of ld. CIT(A), NFAC pertaining to A.Y. 2015-16 & 2016- 17 respectively. Since common issue on identical facts are involved in these appeals…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2731/DEL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2007-08] Dcit, Vs Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd., Central Circle-20, Ugf-15, Indraprastha Building, 21, New Delhi. Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan-Aaaca0377R Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80Section 80I

…iness income, thereby ousting the applicability of section 22 read with section 23 of the Act, relating to taxation of income under the head 'income from house property' as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. v. CIT: 373 ITR 673. It would, however, be pertinent to point out that the Supreme Court has admitted the Special Leave Petition filed by the assessee against the said decision of the High Court vide order dated 19.09.2016 passed in SLP (C) No. 26863/2016 reported in 243 Taxman 144, which is pending disposal. • AY 2005-06 and 2006-07: ITA No. 931 and 934 of 2017 (De…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur vs. U R Investments, Jaipur

15. In view of the above discussion, finding no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order, present appeal by the Department challenging the impugned order deserves to be dismissed

ITA 765/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri R.K. Bhatra (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl. CIT) (V.H.)

Section 234B

…stitution documents like Memorandum of Association or Articles of Association, in case of a company, or from the partnership deed, in case of a firm. In this regard, reference may be made to decisions in Chennai Properties & Investments Limited v. CIT, [2015] 373 ITR 673 (SC) ; Karanpura Development Co. Limited [1962] 44 ITR 362 (SC) and Rayala Corporation (P.) Limited v. ACIT, 2016] 386 ITR 500 (SC). Even, in the case of Raj Dadarkar & Associates v. ACIT, Civil Appeal Nos 6455-6460 of 2017, Hon’ble Apex Court has held that apart from relying on the object clause, the assessee-taxpayer would be required to produc…

DCIT, Circle-1, Muzaffarpur vs. M/S R.P.Rai Estate Pvt Ltd, Patna

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 28/PAT/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna03 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Circle-1, Muzaffarpur M/S. R.P. Rai Estate Pvt. Ltd. Vs 19, Goharua, Patliputra Colony, Patliputra, Patna- 800013. Pan: Aaccr 4972 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra, Jcit, Dr Respondent By : Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 19.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.04.2024 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Appeal Of The Revenue For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.06.2020 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeal), Patna [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Ld. Cit(A)’].

For Appellant: Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra, JCIT, DRFor Respondent: Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate

Section 143(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PATNA BENCH, PATNA BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SONJOY SARMA, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2017-18 DCIT, Circle-1, Muzaffarpur M/s. R.P. Rai Estate Pvt. Ltd. vs 19, Goharua, Patliputra Colony, Patliputra, Patna- 800013. PAN: AACCR 4972 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Appellant by : Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra, JCIT, DR Respondent by : Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate Date of Hearing : 19.03.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 03.04.2024 O R D E R PER SONJOY SARMA, JM: This appeal of the revenue for the assessment year 2017-18 is directe…

Effective Teleservices Pvt. Ltd., Gandhinagar vs. The Pr. CIT-3, Ahmedabad

In the result, the order passed under Section 263 of the Act is directed to be set-aside

ITA 410/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Malay Kalavadia & Shri ShalibhadraFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 24Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.410/Ahd/2023 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Effective Teleservices Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Principal Commissioner of 101-103, 1st Floor Info Tower 4, Income Tax-3, Info City Complex, Airport Road, Ahmedabad Gujarat-382009 Gujarat-380015 [PAN No.AAACE9318E] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Malay Kalavadia & Shri Shalibhadra Shah, A.Rs. Respondent by: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing 05.02.2024 Date of Pronouncement 08.03.2024 O R D E R PER SI…