CIT v. K. Streetlite Electric Corporation

336 ITR 348High Court2011#11551 most cited
9

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2022.

Judgments citing CIT v. K. Streetlite Electric Corporation

DEENA ASIT MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4449/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, a/wFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar, Sr. A.R. – CIT
Section 143(3)Section 24Section 254(1)Section 254(2)

…for assessment year 2012–13, the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal in ITA No. 3549/MUM/2016 vide order dated 9 February 2018 dismissed the appeal following the decision of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in CIT v/s K. Streetlite Electric Corporation (2011) 336 ITR 348 and held that security deposit was to circumvent real rent and same shall fall within the ambit of “Income from House Property”. Though, the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal passed its order for assessment year 2012–13 on 9 February 2018, however, the decision dated 8 August 2014 passed by Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in Tip Top Typography Dee…

DEENA ASIT MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3549/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Deena Asit Mehta Dcit-4(1)(1) 67, 3Rd Block, Poddar Mumbai. Vs. Chambers, S.A. Brelvi Road, Fort, Mumbai-400001 Pan No. Aabpm6683L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Satish Modi, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Purushottam Kumar, Dr & Ms. N.Hemlatha, Dr Last Date Of Hearing : 02/02/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/02/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Satish Modi, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Purushottam Kumar, DR
Section 143(3)Section 23

…lance sheet and Profit and Loss Account for the AY 2012-13 and (xi) Order of the CIT(A) for AY 2006-07. 6. Per contra, the Ld. DRs support the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). A copy of the decision in the case of CIT vs. Streetlite Electric Corporation (2011) 336 ITR 348(P&H) is filed. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. The reasons for our decision are given below. The assessee has declared Rs.4,80,000/- being leave and licence fees from office premises situated in Poddar Chambers under the head ‘Income from Other Sources’. The assessee is a tenant of the said pre…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PSB INDUSTRIES INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2967/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Nov 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Atiq Ahmad, D.RFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Ray, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 23

…ssary to look whether there is any tangible material available with the AO while reopening this case. Though in the assessment order the AO mentions the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of M/s K Streetlight Electric Corporation (336 ITR 348), there is no mention of this case law in the reasons recorded by the AO for reopening the earlier assessment order. There is mention in the assessment order that spot enquiries were carried out but the date mentioned is 26.12.2011 which is subsequent to the second reopening and just before the completion of the assessment on 29.12.2011. I have a…

M/S SOBHA INTERIORS PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 1692/BANG/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Nov 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Respondent: Shri Kamaladhar, Standing Counsel
Section 234

…1)(a) of the Act. When the property is let out, the ALV is to be computed as per section 23(1)(b) of the Act. The ld. DR placed heavy reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. K. Streetlite Electric Corporation, 336 ITR 348 (P&H) in which it has been categorically held that interest free security deposit taken by the assessee hugely disproportionate to monthly rent charged is a device to circumvent ITA Nos.1607, 1630 & 1692/B/2012 Page 11 of 17 liability to income tax. Therefore, notional interest on security deposit is to be treated as income from house property…

M/S SOBHA GLAZING & METAL WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 1630/BANG/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Nov 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Respondent: Shri Kamaladhar, Standing Counsel
Section 234

…1)(a) of the Act. When the property is let out, the ALV is to be computed as per section 23(1)(b) of the Act. The ld. DR placed heavy reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. K. Streetlite Electric Corporation, 336 ITR 348 (P&H) in which it has been categorically held that interest free security deposit taken by the assessee hugely disproportionate to monthly rent charged is a device to circumvent ITA Nos.1607, 1630 & 1692/B/2012 Page 11 of 17 liability to income tax. Therefore, notional interest on security deposit is to be treated as income from house property…

M/S SOBHA INTERIORS PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 1607/BANG/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Nov 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Respondent: Shri Kamaladhar, Standing Counsel
Section 234

…1)(a) of the Act. When the property is let out, the ALV is to be computed as per section 23(1)(b) of the Act. The ld. DR placed heavy reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. K. Streetlite Electric Corporation, 336 ITR 348 (P&H) in which it has been categorically held that interest free security deposit taken by the assessee hugely disproportionate to monthly rent charged is a device to circumvent ITA Nos.1607, 1630 & 1692/B/2012 Page 11 of 17 liability to income tax. Therefore, notional interest on security deposit is to be treated as income from house property…

JYOTSNA K SHETH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

ITA 2750/MUM/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2016AY 2004-05
For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Sathe-ARFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar Singh-DR
Section 23(1)(a)Section 254(1)

…अिधकरण, ‘जे’ खंडपीठ आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण खंडपीठ मुंबई मुंबई आयकर आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण खंडपीठ खंडपीठ मुंबई मुंबई INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI “J” BENCH सव"ी सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" सव"ी राजे"" राजे"", लेखा राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं सद"य एवं एवं राम लाल नेगी एवं राम लाल नेगी राम लाल नेगी, , , , "याियक सद"य राम लाल नेगी "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य Before S/Sh. Rajendra,Accountant Member & Ram Lal Negi,Judicial Member आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/.ITA No.2750/Mum/2012,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Assessment Year-2004-05 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" आयकर आयक…

GOODVALUE POLYPLAST LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 16(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 1662/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2015AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri Mitesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Debashis Chandra-CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण,”जी जी” खंडपीठ खंडपीठ मुंबई मुंबई आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण जी जी खंडपीठ खंडपीठ मुंबई मुंबई INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI-G,BENCH एवं पाथ"सारथी चौधरी,"ाियक सद" सव"ी राजे"", लेखा सद"य एवं एवं एवं Before S/Sh. Rajendra,Accountant Member & Parthasarathy Choudhury,Judicial Member आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/.ITA No.1662/Mum/2011,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Assessment Year-2006-07 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/s. Goodvalue Polyplast Ltd. Income tax Officer-6(3)(1) B/9, Trade World premises, Aaykar Bhavan,M K Road, Kamala Mills Compound, Vs Mumbai…

DCIT CEN CIR 23, MUMBAI vs. RAJENDRA BAROT, MUMBAI

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

ITA 2961/MUM/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2015AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Lalit Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta & AnujFor Respondent: Mrs Rupender Brar, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 23(1)(a)

…e absence of any incriminating material found during the search. Before us, Ld DRs for the Revenue relied on the decisions of the Tribunal in the case of ITO vs. Baker Technical Services (P) Ltd (126 TTJ 455) (Mum); CIT vs. K. Streetlite Electric Corporation [336 ITR 348 (P&H)]. 19. On the other hand, Ld Counsel for the assessee relied on various decisions of the Tribunal and made written submissions in support of his contention that the AO has not conducted any enquiry to find the fair market rent expected to be fetched by the property and compare it with the actual rent received and then he can proceed to make…

CIT v. K. Streetlite Electric Corporation (336 ITR 348) — Cited in 9 Judgments | BharatTax