Chettiar: 107 ITR 236 (Mad.) CIT vs. A. Mohammed Mohideen: 176 ITR 393 (Mad.) CIT v. Suresh Chand Goyal

144 ITR 756High Court1983#10199 most cited
10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Issues it is cited on

section 24aself occupied propertysection 23(1)(a)section 23(1)annual letting valuehouse property incomesection 22section 26section 23salarysection 153section 153a

Judgments citing Chettiar: 107 ITR 236 (Mad.) CIT vs. A. Mohammed Mohideen: 176 ITR 393 (Mad.) CIT v. Suresh Chand Goyal

SHIVANI MADAN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-05, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 657/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Sahil Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amitabh Kumar Sinha, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 153ASection 22Section 23(1)(a)Section 24a

…ownership, the Assessing Officer was justified in holding that the appellant was 50% owner of the property. Reliance is placed on the following case laws: R.B. Jodha Mai Kuthiala v. CIT [1971 ] 82. ITR 570 (SC)  Kaur Singh v. CIT [1982] 11 Taxman 207/[1983] 144 ITR 756 (Punj.  & Har.) Biraj Mohan Biswal v. CIT [1992] 198 ITR 465 (Ori.)  Keshardeo Chamria, in re [1937] 5 ITR 246 (Cal.) 4.1.6 Since the property was vacant during the year, ALV of the property was liable to be taxed in view of provisions of section 23(1 )(a) of Income. Tax Act. 4.1.7 The property was purchased by the appellant and her husband for…

SHIVANI MADAN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-05, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 498/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Sahil Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amitabh Kumar Sinha, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 153ASection 22Section 23(1)(a)Section 24a

…ownership, the Assessing Officer was justified in holding that the appellant was 50% owner of the property. Reliance is placed on the following case laws: R.B. Jodha Mai Kuthiala v. CIT [1971 ] 82. ITR 570 (SC)  Kaur Singh v. CIT [1982] 11 Taxman 207/[1983] 144 ITR 756 (Punj.  & Har.) Biraj Mohan Biswal v. CIT [1992] 198 ITR 465 (Ori.)  Keshardeo Chamria, in re [1937] 5 ITR 246 (Cal.) 4.1.6 Since the property was vacant during the year, ALV of the property was liable to be taxed in view of provisions of section 23(1 )(a) of Income. Tax Act. 4.1.7 The property was purchased by the appellant and her husband for…

KANUBHAI VANMALIBHAI PATEL HUF,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 60/SRT/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Physical Court) Kanubhai Vanmalibhai Patel I.T.O.,Ward 1(2)(1), Huf,6, Siddharth Society, Surat. Vs. Behind Afil Tower, Lambe Hanuman Road, Surat-395010. Pan: Aakhp 0725 K Appellant Respondednt

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263Section 54B

…li (2006) 5 SOT-558 (Bang.),  S K. Kantilal (231 CTR 531- P&H),  Delhi Apartment (P) Limited (135 ITD-441) (Delhi), 15 Kanubhai Vanmalibhai Patel HUF Vs ITO  Harjit Singh Sanga (37 taxmann.com 63 P& H),  P. K. N. & Co Limited (60 ITR 65-SC),  Kaur Singh (144 ITR 756 P & H),  Michael Kallivayalil (102 ITR 202 Ker),  Kasturi Estate (P) Limited (62 ITR 578 Madras),  Omkarmal Rambilas Ginning and Processing Factory (44 SOT 544 Hyd Trib.),  Rewashanker A Kothari (283 ITR 338- Gujarat),  Marudhar Hotels (P) Limited (92 DTR-1 Jodhpur Trib.) and  D.N. Krishanappa (21 DTR -11 Bangalore –Trib.) 9. At the time of…

VAIJANTI JAIN,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-40(3), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 746/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2013-14] Vaijanti Jain, Vs Ito, C-407, 2Nd Floor, Saraswati Ward-40(3), Vihar, Pitampura, Delhi-110034. New Delhi. Pan-Aaafpj5260J Appellant Respondent Appellant By Ms.Rano Jain, Adv. & Ms. Mansi Jain, Ca Respondent By Shri Sumesh Swani, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 06.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 30.01.2023

…that the findings of the Tribunal are findings of fact and do not, therefore, give rise to any referable question of law.” ii. ITO vs. Sh. Gagandeep hardwaj ITA No. 155/Chd/2010, 1355/Chd/2010 dated 17.04.2012 - ITAT Chandigarh iii. Kaur Singh v. CIT [1983] 144 ITR 756 - Punjab and Haryana High Court “ The assessee admittedly had purchased the property in the year 1967. The Revenue has not at all brought any circumstance or evidence on the record to show that at the time of the purchase of the property in the year 1967, the assessee had an intention to sell the property. Merely carving out plots in a portion of…

SHIVANI MADAN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-05, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1642/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Sahil Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary,CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 22Section 23Section 23(1)(a)Section 24aSection 250

…wnership, the Assessing Officer was justified in holding that the appellant was 50% owner of the property. Reliance is placed on the following case laws:  R.B. Jodha Mai Kuthiala v. CIT [1971 ] 82. ITR 570 (SC)  Kaur Singh v. CIT [1982] 11 Taxman 207/[1983] 144 ITR 756 (Punj. & Har.)  Biraj Mohan Biswal v. CIT [1992] 198 ITR 465 (Ori.)  Keshardeo Chamria, in re [1937] 5 ITR 246 (Cal.) 4.1.6 Since the property was vacant during the year, ALV of the property was liable to be taxed in view of provisions of section 23(1 )(a) of Income. Tax Act. 4.1.7 The property was purchased by the appellant and her husband for…

ADDL. CIT, GHAZIABAD vs. M/S. AMRIT CORP LTD., GHAZIABAD

Appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5337/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2007-08 Ay: 2008-09

For Appellant: S/Shri Rohit Jain, Rohit Garg, AdvsFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jain, DR
Section 45(2)

…Co. v. CIT : 107 ITR 716 (All.) CIT v. Kasturi Estates (P.) Ltd: 62 ITR 578 (Mad.) CIT vs. MLM Mahalingam Chettiar: 107 ITR 236 (Mad.) CIT vs. A. Mohammed Mohideen: 176 ITR 393 (Mad.) CIT vs. Suresh Chand Goyal: 298 ITR 277 (MP) Kaur Singh vs. CIT: 144 ITR 756(P&H) Asha Housing Enterprises vs. DCIT: 127 ITD 94 (Bang.) 3.013 Our attention was also invited to the following decisions wherein it has been held that to determine the nature of an asset, one must look at the intention of an assessee at the time of purchase of an asset-whether the same was to be held as “capital asset” or as “stock-in-trade…

AMRIT CORP LTD.,GHAZIABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, GHAZIABAD

Appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4579/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2007-08 Ay: 2008-09

For Appellant: S/Shri Rohit Jain, Rohit Garg, AdvsFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jain, DR
Section 45(2)

…Co. v. CIT : 107 ITR 716 (All.) CIT v. Kasturi Estates (P.) Ltd: 62 ITR 578 (Mad.) CIT vs. MLM Mahalingam Chettiar: 107 ITR 236 (Mad.) CIT vs. A. Mohammed Mohideen: 176 ITR 393 (Mad.) CIT vs. Suresh Chand Goyal: 298 ITR 277 (MP) Kaur Singh vs. CIT: 144 ITR 756(P&H) Asha Housing Enterprises vs. DCIT: 127 ITD 94 (Bang.) 3.013 Our attention was also invited to the following decisions wherein it has been held that to determine the nature of an asset, one must look at the intention of an assessee at the time of purchase of an asset-whether the same was to be held as “capital asset” or as “stock-in-trade…

ADDL. CIT, GHAZIABAD vs. M/S AMRIT CORP LTD., GHAZIABAD

Appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2163/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2007-08 Ay: 2008-09

For Appellant: S/Shri Rohit Jain, Rohit Garg, AdvsFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jain, DR
Section 45(2)

…Co. v. CIT : 107 ITR 716 (All.) CIT v. Kasturi Estates (P.) Ltd: 62 ITR 578 (Mad.) CIT vs. MLM Mahalingam Chettiar: 107 ITR 236 (Mad.) CIT vs. A. Mohammed Mohideen: 176 ITR 393 (Mad.) CIT vs. Suresh Chand Goyal: 298 ITR 277 (MP) Kaur Singh vs. CIT: 144 ITR 756(P&H) Asha Housing Enterprises vs. DCIT: 127 ITD 94 (Bang.) 3.013 Our attention was also invited to the following decisions wherein it has been held that to determine the nature of an asset, one must look at the intention of an assessee at the time of purchase of an asset-whether the same was to be held as “capital asset” or as “stock-in-trade…

AMRIT CORP LTD.,GHAZIABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, GHAZIABAD

Appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1789/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2007-08 Ay: 2008-09

For Appellant: S/Shri Rohit Jain, Rohit Garg, AdvsFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jain, DR
Section 45(2)

…Co. v. CIT : 107 ITR 716 (All.) CIT v. Kasturi Estates (P.) Ltd: 62 ITR 578 (Mad.) CIT vs. MLM Mahalingam Chettiar: 107 ITR 236 (Mad.) CIT vs. A. Mohammed Mohideen: 176 ITR 393 (Mad.) CIT vs. Suresh Chand Goyal: 298 ITR 277 (MP) Kaur Singh vs. CIT: 144 ITR 756(P&H) Asha Housing Enterprises vs. DCIT: 127 ITD 94 (Bang.) 3.013 Our attention was also invited to the following decisions wherein it has been held that to determine the nature of an asset, one must look at the intention of an assessee at the time of purchase of an asset-whether the same was to be held as “capital asset” or as “stock-in-trade…

SH. ANKIT MITTAL,GURGAON vs. ITO, GURGAON

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

ITA 1511/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. V. R. Sonbhadra, Sr. DR
Section 24Section 24(1)(vi)

…y the husband would not disentitle her domineer over the property. He, therefore, sustained the disallowance made by the AO. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " R.B. Jodha Mal Kuthiala Vs CIT (1971) 82 ITR 520 (SC) " Kaur Singh Vs CIT (1983) 144 ITR 756 (P&H) " Biraj Mohan Biswal Vs CIT (1992) 198 ITR 465 (Ori.) " Keshar Deo Chamaria Vs CIT (1937) 5 ITR 246 (Cal.) 9. Now the assessee is in appeal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below and further submitted that during the year under consideration there was a loss of Rs.3,15,679/- while comp…

Chettiar: 107 ITR 236 (Mad.) CIT vs. A. Mohammed Mohideen: 176 ITR 393 (Mad.) CIT v. Suresh Chand Goyal (144 ITR 756) — Cited in 10 Judgments | BharatTax