CIT v. H.G. Gupta & Sons.

149 ITR 253High Court1984#12178 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2021.

Judgments citing CIT v. H.G. Gupta & Sons.

Rockcastle Property Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT(A)-10, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 7377/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7377/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Rockcastle Property Private Ltd Ito-5(3)(1) 3Rd Floor, Sunama House Room No.21, 3Rd Floor B-Wing बनाम/ 140, August Kranti Marg Mittal Court, Nariman Point Vs. Opp. Shalimar Hotel, Kemps Corner Mumbai – 400 021. Mumbai – 400 026. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcr-9466-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Gopal Sharma-Ld. Ar Revenue By : Ms. Smita Verma – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 17/03/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 18/05/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Gopal Sharma-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Verma – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 23(1)(b)Section 24

…ted that the action of Ld. AO was in line with the decision of Mumbai Tribunal in Township Real Estate Developers India Private Limited V/s CIT (51 SOT 411 04/04/2012 AY 2004-05) which considered the decisions of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in H.G. Gupta & Sons (149 ITR 253), the decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High court in Aravali Engineers P. Ltd. (200 Taxman 81) and the decision of Chandigarh Bench in case of Piccadilly Hotels Private Ltd. (97 TTJ 411). The decision of Mumbai Tribunal in Sharmila Tagore (93 TTJ 483) was held to be not applicable since this decision did not consider the decision of Hon’ble…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Smt. Seema Sobti, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 5899/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 54Section 54E

…ice charges received by the appellant for provisioning of services under the head 'Income from business & Profession'. The Assessing Officer has misplaced reliance on the judgment of Honorable Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. H.G. Gupta & Sons [19841 149 ITR 253 (Delhi) and Honorable High Court at Calcutta in the case of Indian City Properties vs. CIT [1965] 55 ITR 262 (Cal). The facts and rationale of both the Honorable high Courts in the respective judgment are totally different footings and facts, which are not relevant to the instant appeal. The cases pertain to the allowablity of certain deducti…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Shri Pradeep Sobti, New Delhi

In the result, both the 02 appeals filed by the Revenue stand

ITA 5901/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54E

…ice charges received by the appellant for provisioning of services under the head 'Income from business & Profession'. The Assessing Officer has misplaced reliance on the judgment of Honorable Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. H.G. Gupta & Sons [19841 149 ITR 253 (Delhi) and Honorable High Court at Calcutta in the case of Indian City Properties vs. CIT [1965] 55 ITR 262 (Cal). The facts and rationale of both the Honorable high Courts in the respective judgment are totally different footings and facts, which are not relevant to the instant appeal. The cases pertain to the allowablity of certain deducti…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Shri Akshay Sobti, New Delhi

In the result, both the 02 appeals filed by the Revenue stand

ITA 5900/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54E

…ice charges received by the appellant for provisioning of services under the head 'Income from business & Profession'. The Assessing Officer has misplaced reliance on the judgment of Honorable Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. H.G. Gupta & Sons [19841 149 ITR 253 (Delhi) and Honorable High Court at Calcutta in the case of Indian City Properties vs. CIT [1965] 55 ITR 262 (Cal). The facts and rationale of both the Honorable high Courts in the respective judgment are totally different footings and facts, which are not relevant to the instant appeal. The cases pertain to the allowablity of certain deducti…

Sarwankumar Devidutt Saraf, Mumbai vs. ACIT 14(3)

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 5248/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.5248/M/14 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) बनाम/ Shri Sarwankumar Devidutt Asst. Commissioner Of Saraf Income Tax – 14(3) Vs. Prop. Of M/S. Saraf Sales Mumbai Corporation, 50, Chhotalal Bhavan, 418, Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai - 400002 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aalps7121H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Krish Desai & Ms. Maina Sancheti Department By: Shri Deepak Ripote सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20.07.2016 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28.10.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 05.06.2014 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 25

For Appellant: Shri Krish Desai and Ms. Maina SanchetiFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Ripote
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 24

…e have been specified in A.Y. 2010-11 Section 24. De-hors the said provision, deduction from income is not permissible. This view has also been taken by Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax, Delhi-I Vs. H.G.Gupta & Sons [1984] CTR (Del.) 178: (1984) 149 ITR 253 (Del). I have also perused the case of H.G.Gupta & Sons (supra) referred by Hon’ble Punjab-Haryana High Court, and find that in similar case, the expenditure incurred towards stamp duty and registration charges were not allowed as a deduction in assessing annual value of property. Relying upon the aforesaid case laws, I confirm the disallowance m…

Sharan Hospitality P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 9(3), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 6717/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6717/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Sharan Hospitality Private Limited Dy. Cit – Circle 9(3) बनाम/ Ground Floor, Gys Infinity, Mumbai Paranjape ‘B’, Scheme, Subhas Road, Vs. Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-57 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aagcs 8608 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. Priyanka Jain ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K. Mahondas सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 26.5.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 12.9.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 18.9.2012, Dismissing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting Its Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2009- 10 Vide Order Dated 22.12.2011. 2. The Only Issue Arising In This Appeal Is The Correct Amount At Which The Annual Value In Respect Of The Assessee’S Swami Vivekanand (S.V.) Road, Mumbai Property

For Appellant: Ms. Priyanka JainFor Respondent: Shri K. Mahondas
Section 143(3)Section 22Section 23

…n artificial or statutory income. The law in the matter is well-settled, for which reference is made to CIT vs. Dalhousie Properties Ltd. [1984] 149 ITR 708 (SC); New Piece Goods Bazar Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1950] 18 ITR 516 (SC); CIT vs. H. G. Gupta & Sons [1984] 149 ITR 253 (Del); and Sakarlal Balabhai vs. ITO [1975] 100 ITR 97 (Guj). The AV, irrespective of whether the property is actually let or not, is thus to be subject to tax, unless covered under section 23(1)(b), as again reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court per its Constitution Bench decision in Sultan Brothers (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1964] 51 ITR 353 (SC). In Liq…

Ramesh Builders, Mumbai vs. ITO 12(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee-Ramesh Builders(India) in ITA N0

ITA 1798/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1797/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Ramesh Builders (India), Income Tax बनाम/ 9, Dhiraj Chambers, Officer,12(1)(2),Aayakar V. 9, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Bhavan,M.K. Road, Fort,Mumbai – 400001. Mumbai. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaafr4655E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Dr. Mukesh Jain,DR
Section 143(3)Section 45(4)

…ess carried on by the assessee. Further, it was observed that the compensation expenses of Rs. 2,40,35,000/- does not fall under the purview of section 24 of the Act. Reliance was placed by the AO on the decision in the case of CIT v. H.G. Gupta & Sons (1984) 149 ITR 253 (Delhi) wherein it was held that deduction not specifically provided for are not admissible. The A.O. observed that as per the agreement between the assessee firm and the Pyramid , there is no clause for compensation in the event of termination of the agreement by the assessee. Thus, the compulsion and the genuineness of the assessee firm regardi…

Ramesh Builders (India), Mumbai vs. ITO 12(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee-Ramesh Builders(India) in ITA N0

ITA 1797/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1797/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Ramesh Builders (India), Income Tax बनाम/ 9, Dhiraj Chambers, Officer,12(1)(2),Aayakar V. 9, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Bhavan,M.K. Road, Fort,Mumbai – 400001. Mumbai. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaafr4655E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Dr. Mukesh Jain,DR
Section 143(3)Section 45(4)

…ess carried on by the assessee. Further, it was observed that the compensation expenses of Rs. 2,40,35,000/- does not fall under the purview of section 24 of the Act. Reliance was placed by the AO on the decision in the case of CIT v. H.G. Gupta & Sons (1984) 149 ITR 253 (Delhi) wherein it was held that deduction not specifically provided for are not admissible. The A.O. observed that as per the agreement between the assessee firm and the Pyramid , there is no clause for compensation in the event of termination of the agreement by the assessee. Thus, the compulsion and the genuineness of the assessee firm regardi…

CIT v. H.G. Gupta & Sons. (149 ITR 253) — Cited in 8 Judgments | BharatTax