CIT v. Ajit Kumar Roy

252 ITR 468High Court2001#15455 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Issues it is cited on

section 24a self occupied property section 23(1)(a)section 23(1)annual letting value house property income section 22 section 23 section 26 salary section 153 section 153a

Judgments citing CIT v. Ajit Kumar Roy

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

…ards the purchase cost, can at best be brought to tax to the extent of 5.4% only. He relied on the decision of Allahabad Bench of Tribunal in ACIT vs. C.K. Malik (2004) 89 ITD 249 (Alld) and the decision of Calcutta High Court in CIT vs. Ajit Kumar Roy (2001) 252 ITR 468 (Cal). 9. The Ld. DR on the other hand submitted that ownership in the property is determined as per the mutation records. The sale deed nowhere specified the share of the co- owners. Therefore, share of co-owners is not ascertainable. Drawing our attention to the payment schedule appearing at page 24 of the assessee’s Paper Book, the Ld. DR poin…

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

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

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Asstt. Year: 2015-16 Smt. Shivani Madan Vs. ACIT, J-278, Saket, Central Circle-05, New Delhi- 110 017 New Delhi. PAN AGGPM2632Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Sahil Sharma, Advocate Ms. Jyoti Sharma, Advocate Department by : Shri H.K. Choudhary,CIT-DR Date of Hearing 29.11.2022 Date of pronouncement 05.01.2023 O R D E R PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM The appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 11.09.2020 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Ap…

DCIT, Circle-11(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Kalamkari Designs Pvt.Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 47/KOL/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Dec 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Sh. P.M.Jagtap & Sh. S.S.Viswanethra Ravidcit, M/S. Kalamkari Designs Vs Circle-11(1), P-7, Pvt.Ltd., 138, Beliaghata Chowringhee Square, Square, Kolkata-700015. Kolkata-700069. Pan-Aabck2117N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Soumesh Dash, Addl. Cit Dr Respondent By Sh. D.S.Damle, Fca Date Of Hearing 06.09.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 04.12.2018 Order Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravithis Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 17.10.2016 Passed By Cit(A)-10, Kolkata For Ay 2004-05. 2. The Assessee Is A Company & Is A Manufacturer & Exporter Of Garments. 3. Ground No.1 Raised By The Revenue Challenging The Action Of The Cit(A) In Deleting The Addition Made On Account Of Long Term Capital Gain As Against The Income From Other Sources Held By The Ao. 4. According To Ao, The Assessee Earned Profit Of Rs.49,85,861/- On Sales Of Shares & Booked The Same As “Other Income”. The Same Has Been Shown As Long Term Capital Gain In The Computation Of Total Income & Sought Set Off Against Forwarded Long Term Capital Loss. 5. The Ao Treated The Said Profit As Income From Other Sources & Denied Set Off Against The Forwarded Loss By The Reasons As Under: A. “The Auditor Had Qualified In The Tax Audit Report That The Investments Were Held In The Name Of The Director Of The Company.

…h accepted position and hold that the investments did not belong to the assessee. h. It was argued that the Ld. AO's finding in this regard is also contrary to the ratio laid down by the Jurisdictional Calcutta High court in the case of CIT Vs Ajit Kumar Roy (252 ITR 468). In this case a flat was purchased in 1973 in the name of wife of Sri A K Roy ,but entire investment in the flat purchased was provided by the assessee. 3 The assessee's wife was only a house maker and had no independent sources of income. In the A.Y. 1981~82 the said flat was sold but no income was disclosed in the hands of the assessee i.e. t…

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)

…(A) was not justified in confirming the disallowance made by the AO. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " CIT Vs Podar Cements Pvt. Ltd. (1997) 226 ITR 625 (SC) " ACIT Vs C.K. Malik (2004) 89 ITD 245 (Ald. Trib) " CIT Vs Ajit Kumar Roy (2002) 252 ITR 468 (Cal.) 10. In his rival submissions the ld. DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below and reiterated the observations made therein. 11. I have considered the submission of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on the record. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the assessee purchased the pro…

ITO 25(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Bhavna N Patel, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1344/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Randhir Gupta

Section 69A

…ax the income in the hands of real owner, their Lordships have taken the view that the owner is the person who is entitled to receive income, This decision of the Apex Court was relied upon by the Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT v Ajit Kumar Roy (2001) 252 ITR 468 (Cal.). In the said case, the assessee had bought a house property in the name of her wife, However the entire investment for buying the property was made by the assessee himself, The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court relying on the above decision of the Apex Court held that the "when the entire investment was made by the assessee, simply the flat is i…