CIT v. Dr. B.Venkatrao

243 ITR 82Supreme Court of India#7951 most cited
14

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 2(14)Section 263Section 48Section 54

Issues it is cited on

public servantmalabar industrialsundry creditorssection 119complete scrutinyregular assessmenterroneous and prejudicialsection 263section 26scrutiny assessmentsection 11section 142(1)

Judgments citing CIT v. Dr. B.Venkatrao

ANIL KUMAR BATAR,SIKAR vs. PCIT-JAIPUR-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 418/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Sept 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 263

…ay\nfor deep investigations Because there is no limit of deep investigation. In the Act\nalso no reference of the Deep inquiry or investigation.Alsorefer Gaberial India\nLtd. 203 ITR 108 (Bom). That is why Hon'ble SC held in Malabar Fisheries\nIndustries Ltd. 243 ITR 82 (SC) that in each and every type of mistake/ error\ncannot be made a basis to invoke Sec. 263. The case laws available on the subject\non this aspect, are distinguishable in as much as those were the cases where no\ninquiries at all (or very minor reflecting from a short assessment order), which is\nnot at all a case here. Also refer Gyan Chand G…

SAJJAD ALI,CHITTORGARH vs. DCIT(INTL)- JAIPUR, JAIPUR

ITA 459/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Ojha (CIT-DR)
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 54

…say for deep investigations Because there is no limit of deep investigation. In the Act also no reference of the Deep inquiry or investigation. Also refer Gaberial India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 (Bom). That is why Hon’ble SC held in Malabar Fisheries Industries Ltd. 243 ITR 82 (SC) that in each and every type of mistake/ error cannot be made a basis to invoke Sec.263. The case laws available on the subject on this aspect, are distinguishable in as much as those were the cases where no inquiries at all (or very minor reflecting from a short assessment order), which is not at all a case here. Also refer Gyan Chand Gupta V…

M/S. PYROTECH ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.,UDAIPUR vs. PR. CIT, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3/JODH/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur10 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)Section 44A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 3/Jodh/21 (ASSESSMENT YEAR- 2017-18 ) Pyrotech Electronics (P) Ltd Vs The Pr. CIT O.F. 16-A, Road No. 3, M.I.A. Udaipur Madri, Udaipur (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN NO. AABCP 2186 Q Assessee By Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, Advocate Revenue By Smt. Alka Rajvanshi Jain- CIT-DR Date of hearing 02/11/2022 Date of 10 /01/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM The assessee has filed an appeal against the order of the ld. Pr,CIT, Udaipur for the assess…

ASHUTOSH BHARGAVA,JAIPUR vs. PR.CIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 20/JPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Jan 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Adv)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271BSection 44ASection 54E

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “B”, JAIPUR Jh ,u-ds-lSuh] mik/;{k ,oa Jh lanhi x®lkÃa] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 20/JP/2021 Assessment Year: 2016-17 cuke Shri Ashutosh Bhargava, Pr.CIT-2, Vs. B-801, C-22, Trimurty Dave Jaipur. Apartment, Jai Singh Highway, Banipark, Jaipur (Raj)-302016. PAN No.: AAPPB 4152 K vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Adv) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.CIT-D…

PALSANA GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LTD.,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-2, JAIPUR

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

ITA 37/JPR/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 35 To 37/Jp/2021 Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2012-13 Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Cuke Pr.Cit-2, Vs. Limited, Jaipur. Village- Palsana Main Market, Palsana, Dist.- Sikar- 332402 (Raj) Pan No.: Aabap 8390 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-2, Jaipur All Dated 31/03/2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2010-11 To 2012-13. 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.CIT-DR)
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…of assessment procedure”. And also held there is no case laws which say for deep investigations Because there is no limit of deep investigation. Also refer Gaberial India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 (Bom). That is why Hon’ble SC held in Malabar Fisheries Industries Ltd. 243 ITR 82 (SC) that in each and every type of mistake/ error cannot be made a basis to invoke Sec.263. The case laws available on the subject on this aspect, are distinguishable in as much as those were the cases where no inquiries at all (or very minor reflecting from a short assessment order), which is not at all a case here. Also refer Gyan Chand Gupta V…

PALSANA GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LTD.,PALASANA vs. PCIT-2, JAIPUR

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

ITA 36/JPR/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 35 To 37/Jp/2021 Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2012-13 Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Cuke Pr.Cit-2, Vs. Limited, Jaipur. Village- Palsana Main Market, Palsana, Dist.- Sikar- 332402 (Raj) Pan No.: Aabap 8390 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-2, Jaipur All Dated 31/03/2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2010-11 To 2012-13. 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.CIT-DR)
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…of assessment procedure”. And also held there is no case laws which say for deep investigations Because there is no limit of deep investigation. Also refer Gaberial India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 (Bom). That is why Hon’ble SC held in Malabar Fisheries Industries Ltd. 243 ITR 82 (SC) that in each and every type of mistake/ error cannot be made a basis to invoke Sec.263. The case laws available on the subject on this aspect, are distinguishable in as much as those were the cases where no inquiries at all (or very minor reflecting from a short assessment order), which is not at all a case here. Also refer Gyan Chand Gupta V…

PALSANA GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LTD.,PALSANA vs. PCIT-2, JAIPUR

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

ITA 35/JPR/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 35 To 37/Jp/2021 Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2012-13 Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Cuke Pr.Cit-2, Vs. Limited, Jaipur. Village- Palsana Main Market, Palsana, Dist.- Sikar- 332402 (Raj) Pan No.: Aabap 8390 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-2, Jaipur All Dated 31/03/2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2010-11 To 2012-13. 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.CIT-DR)
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…of assessment procedure”. And also held there is no case laws which say for deep investigations Because there is no limit of deep investigation. Also refer Gaberial India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 (Bom). That is why Hon’ble SC held in Malabar Fisheries Industries Ltd. 243 ITR 82 (SC) that in each and every type of mistake/ error cannot be made a basis to invoke Sec.263. The case laws available on the subject on this aspect, are distinguishable in as much as those were the cases where no inquiries at all (or very minor reflecting from a short assessment order), which is not at all a case here. Also refer Gyan Chand Gupta V…

AMAZIA DEVELOPERS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT-1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2499/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2019AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta with Anuj Kushandwala –CA’s (AR)For Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena CIT-DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 22Section 253Section 254(1)Section 263

…initiated cannot be initiated by the learned Pr. Commissioner if the assessing officer has taken a possible view. In support of his submission the learned AR of the assessee relied upon the following decision (i) Malabar Industrial Company Ltd Versus CIT ( 243 ITR 82 SC) (ii) CIT Versus Max India ( 295ITR 282 SC) (iii) CIT Vs Arvind Jewellers (290 ITR 689 Guj) (iv) CIT Vs Gabrial India Ltd (203 ITR108 (Bom), (v) CIT Vs Development Credit Bank (323 ITR 206 Bom), (vi) CIT Vs Vikas Polymers (194 TAXMAN 57 Delhi), (vii) CIT Vs Anil Kumar Sharma (194 TAXMAN 504 Delhi) 6. The ld. AR for the assessee further submits…

M/S PREET LAND PROMOTERS AND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,MOHALI vs. PR. CIT-2, CHANDIGARH

ITA 736/CHANDI/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: The Ld. Ao During Original Assessment Proceedings.

For Appellant: Shri. Parikshit AggarwalFor Respondent: Shri. Jagjivan Kumar Garg
Section 143(3)Section 263

…during the year the assessee has neither claimed expenditure set off against the Revenue generated from the business and hence no loss of revenue can be attributed on this head. He relied on the judgment in the case of Malabar Industrial Company Ltd. Vs. CIT 243 ITR 82 (Supreme Court) and CIT Vs. Max India Ltd. 295 ITR 282 (Supreme Court). Ld. DR relied on the order of the Ld.PCIT. 13. We find that the amount of Rs. 48.53 Crores consists of Long Term Loans and Advances of Rs. 27.83 Crores on account of advance for land, Rs. 16.72 Crores on account of bianas, Rs. 3.97 Crores on account of land pooling. The argum…

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), CUTTACK vs. PARADEEP PORT TRUST, JAGATSINGHPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 256/CTK/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack27 Apr 2018AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri J.M.Pattnaik, ARFor Respondent: Shri Saad Kidwai, CITDR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…ome special purpose of the working and thereby they are considered as "plant & machinery" in the working process of the assessee. This claim of the assessee is fortified by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Dr. B.Venkatrao (243 ITR 82), CCI (Admn) v. Viswesarayya Iron & Steel Ltd., Karnataka (199 ITR 98) and Kalinga Tubes Ltd. v. CIT (96 ITR 20). In the light of the dictums stated supra, the assessee’s claim is substantiated and hence found entitled to higher rate of depreciation at 15% on the fixed assets as claimed by the assessee.” 8. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), th…

ACIT, CUTTACK vs. PARADIP PORT TRUST, JAGATSINGHPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 122/CTK/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack10 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2011-2012

For Appellant: Shri J.M.Patnaik, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kunal Singh, CIT DR
Section 43B

…tted that the fixed assets as above served some special purpose for the working of the port and therefore are considered as plant & machinery of the assessee. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Dr. B.Venkata Rao (243 ITR 82). 22. The CIT(A) held that this Bench of the Tribunal in the case of the assessee for the AY 2007-08 (ITA No.99 & 114/CTK/2011) held that "The Asse ssment Year : 20 11- 201 2 assessee was denied of the higher rate of depreciation on the assets finding that they are not "plant & machinery". But as can be seen from the admitted facts and circumst…

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), CUTTACK, CUTTACK vs. PARADEEP PORT TRUST, JAGATSINGHPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue i

ITA 356/CTK/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack09 Aug 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.395/Ctk/2013 (धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2008-2009) Acit, Circle-2(1), Cuttack Vs. Paradip Port Trust, Paradeep, Jagatsinghpur स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaalp 0055 A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.356/Ctk/2013 (धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2009-2010) Acit, Circle-2(1), Cuttack Vs. Paradip Port Trust, Paradeep, Jagatsinghpur स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaalp 0055 A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.332/Ctk/2013 (धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2009-2010) Paradip Port Trust, Vs. Acit, Circle-2(1), Cuttack Paradeep, Jagatsinghpur स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaalp 0055 A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Kunal Singh, Cit Dr निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri J.M.Pattnaik, Ar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 27/07/2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 09/08/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: Out Of These Three Appeals, The Revenue Has Filed Two Appeals I.E.

For Appellant: Shri J.M.Pattnaik, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kunal Singh, CIT DR
Section 11Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(15)

…some special purpose of the working and thereby they are considered as "plant & machinery" in the working process of the assessee. This claim of the assessee is fortified by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of CIT v. Dr. B.Venkatrao(243 ITR 82), CCI(Admn) v. Viswesarayya Iron & Steel Ltd.,Karnataka(199 ITR 98) and Kalinga Tubes Ltd. v. CIT (96 ITR 20). In the light of the dictums stated supra, the assessee's claim is substantiated and hence found entitled to higher rate of depreciation at 15% on the fixed assets as claimed by the assessee." In view of the above order of the Hon'ble Trib…

M/S PARAPIT PORT TRUST,CUTTACK vs. ADDL. CIT, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the revenue i

ITA 332/CTK/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack09 Aug 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.395/Ctk/2013 (धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2008-2009) Acit, Circle-2(1), Cuttack Vs. Paradip Port Trust, Paradeep, Jagatsinghpur स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaalp 0055 A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.356/Ctk/2013 (धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2009-2010) Acit, Circle-2(1), Cuttack Vs. Paradip Port Trust, Paradeep, Jagatsinghpur स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaalp 0055 A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.332/Ctk/2013 (धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2009-2010) Paradip Port Trust, Vs. Acit, Circle-2(1), Cuttack Paradeep, Jagatsinghpur स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaalp 0055 A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Kunal Singh, Cit Dr निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri J.M.Pattnaik, Ar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 27/07/2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 09/08/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: Out Of These Three Appeals, The Revenue Has Filed Two Appeals I.E.

For Appellant: Shri J.M.Pattnaik, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kunal Singh, CIT DR
Section 11Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(15)

…some special purpose of the working and thereby they are considered as "plant & machinery" in the working process of the assessee. This claim of the assessee is fortified by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of CIT v. Dr. B.Venkatrao(243 ITR 82), CCI(Admn) v. Viswesarayya Iron & Steel Ltd.,Karnataka(199 ITR 98) and Kalinga Tubes Ltd. v. CIT (96 ITR 20). In the light of the dictums stated supra, the assessee's claim is substantiated and hence found entitled to higher rate of depreciation at 15% on the fixed assets as claimed by the assessee." In view of the above order of the Hon'ble Trib…

ASHOKA ROOF GARDNES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT 2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 3684/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R C Sharma & Shri Amit Shuklaअशोका "फ गाड"स "ाइवेट "ल"मटेड Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax-2, R.No.344, Aayakar Bhavan, Ashoka Roof Gardens P Ltd., M K Road, 173 Ashoka Shopping Centre, Mumbai -400 020 Lt Road, G T Hospital Compound, Mumbai -400 001 Pan: Aaeca 9035 H अपीलाथ" (Appellant) ""यथ" (Respondent) Appellant By "ी अमर गहलोत Shri Amar Gahlot : "ी एस "ीराम Shri S Sriram Respondent By : "ी राजेश कुमार Shri Rajesh Kumar सुनवाईक"तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 18-02-2016 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06-05-2016

Section 143(1)Section 263

…risdiction under section 263 to cancel or revise the assessment order. In support he relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial 6 अशोका "फ गाड"स "ाइवेट "ल"मटेड Ashoka Roof Gardens P Ltd. Development Corp., reported in 243 ITR 82 and in case of CIT v Max India Ltd., reported in 295 ITR 282. 6. On the other hand, Ld. DR strongly relied upon the order of the CIT and submitted that from the nature of payment and the fact that assessee has merely let out the terrace for installation, the income earned should have been treated as assessable under the head “Income from house pro…