CIT v. Lake Palace Hotel and Motels Ltd.

321 ITR 165High Court2008#14007 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2018.

Judgments citing CIT v. Lake Palace Hotel and Motels Ltd.

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Moni Kumar Subba, New Delhi

In the result ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4038/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Oct 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit, Vs. Sh. Moni Kumar Subba, Central Circle-4, New Delhi Subba Farm House, 118, Village Sultanpur, Mehrauli, Gurgaon Road, Delhi Pan :Aasps1484J (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri. Moni Kumar Subba, Vs. Acit, Subba Farm House, 118, Central Circle-4, E-2, Ara Village Sultanpur, Mehrauli, Centre, Jhandewalan Extn., Gurgaon Road, Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aasps1484J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(47)Section 23Section 23(1)

…of lease agreement goes beyond the enjoyment of the property for certain time. If the property is sold by the lender, then ownership will not return to the appellant. The appellant’s case is not covered by the case of CIT Vs Lake Palace Hotel and Motels Ltd. 321 ITR 165 (Rajasthan) as in that case though the period was for 72 years and more than the period in present case i.e. 30 years in that case. Apart from other variation such as charging of interest on refundable deposit, the main variation is that apparently the land was not expressely hypothecated to the lender on the terms that the same can be sold in ca…

Moni Kumar Subba, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3982/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Oct 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit, Vs. Sh. Moni Kumar Subba, Central Circle-4, New Delhi Subba Farm House, 118, Village Sultanpur, Mehrauli, Gurgaon Road, Delhi Pan :Aasps1484J (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri. Moni Kumar Subba, Vs. Acit, Subba Farm House, 118, Central Circle-4, E-2, Ara Village Sultanpur, Mehrauli, Centre, Jhandewalan Extn., Gurgaon Road, Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aasps1484J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(47)Section 23Section 23(1)

…of lease agreement goes beyond the enjoyment of the property for certain time. If the property is sold by the lender, then ownership will not return to the appellant. The appellant’s case is not covered by the case of CIT Vs Lake Palace Hotel and Motels Ltd. 321 ITR 165 (Rajasthan) as in that case though the period was for 72 years and more than the period in present case i.e. 30 years in that case. Apart from other variation such as charging of interest on refundable deposit, the main variation is that apparently the land was not expressely hypothecated to the lender on the terms that the same can be sold in ca…

Kamakshi Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur

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

ITA 481/JPR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Dec 2017AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma, Addl. CIT - DR &
Section 132Section 153ASection 69

…Arbuthnot & Co. (1973) 87 ITR 407 (SC) 6 CIT V/s Puneet Sabharwal (2012) 204 TAXMAN 16 (del.) 47-48 7 CIT V/s Smt. Suraj Devi (2010) 328 ITR 604 (Del.) 48 8 CIT V/s Smt. Nilofer I. Singh (2009) 221 CTR (Del.) 277 48 CIT V/s Lake Palace Hotels & Motels. (2008) 321 ITR 165 9 48-49 (Raj.) 10 CIT V/s Raja Narendra. (199r) 210 ITR 250 (Raj) 49 11 CIT V/s Naresh Khattar (HUF) (2003) 261 ITR 664 (Del) 49-50 12 CIT V/s Smt. Sushila Devi (2001) 256 ITR 179 (Del.) 50 DCIT V/s Jindal Equipments Leasing & Consultancy 13 50-51 Services Ltd. (2011) 131 ITD 263 (Del) 14 51-53 CIT V/s P.v. Kalyanasundaram, (2006) 282 ITR 259 (Ma…

Kamala Brothers, Mumbai vs. ITO 24(2)1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, and assessee’s appeal as well as and CO filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1160/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2003-04 Kamala Brothers, Ito 24(2)(1) Kuber Chamber, Cts बनाम/ C-13 Bandra Kurla 141-A, Next To Cod, Complex, Bandra(E) Vs. Dutt Mandir Road, Mumbai Malad (E) Mumbai -400097 (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aaafk0111D Assessment Year: 2003-04 Ito 24(2)(1) Kamala Brothers, C-13 Bandra Kurla Kuber Chamber, Cts 141- बनाम/ Complex, Bandra(E) A, Next To Cod, Dutt Vs. Mumbai Mandir Road, Malad (E) Mumbai -400097 (Revenue) (Respondent) P.A. No. Aaafk0111D C.O. No.180/Mum/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1334/Mum/2011) Assessment Year: 2003-04

Section 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 50C

…tals could not have been presumed on the basis of market rates. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Jodhpur Bench of ITAT in the case of Lake Palace Hotels & Motels Ltd. 83 TTJ 1031 which was later confirmed by Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court reported at 321 ITR 165, for the proposition that there is no provision under the law to tax notional amount of lease rent on deemed or presumptive basis. 4.5. On the other hand, Ld. DR has submitted that impugned transaction is a transaction of sale, which has been disguised as a lease transaction. It was also submitted that lower authorities have rightly treated the…

Kamala Brothers, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 24(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, and assessee’s appeal as well as and CO filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1140/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2003-04 Kamala Brothers, Ito 24(2)(1) Kuber Chamber, Cts बनाम/ C-13 Bandra Kurla 141-A, Next To Cod, Complex, Bandra(E) Vs. Dutt Mandir Road, Mumbai Malad (E) Mumbai -400097 (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aaafk0111D Assessment Year: 2003-04 Ito 24(2)(1) Kamala Brothers, C-13 Bandra Kurla Kuber Chamber, Cts 141- बनाम/ Complex, Bandra(E) A, Next To Cod, Dutt Vs. Mumbai Mandir Road, Malad (E) Mumbai -400097 (Revenue) (Respondent) P.A. No. Aaafk0111D C.O. No.180/Mum/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1334/Mum/2011) Assessment Year: 2003-04

Section 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 50C

…tals could not have been presumed on the basis of market rates. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Jodhpur Bench of ITAT in the case of Lake Palace Hotels & Motels Ltd. 83 TTJ 1031 which was later confirmed by Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court reported at 321 ITR 165, for the proposition that there is no provision under the law to tax notional amount of lease rent on deemed or presumptive basis. 4.5. On the other hand, Ld. DR has submitted that impugned transaction is a transaction of sale, which has been disguised as a lease transaction. It was also submitted that lower authorities have rightly treated the…

Kamala Brothers, Mumbai vs. ITO 24(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, and assessee’s appeal as well as and CO filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1139/MUM/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2003-04 Kamala Brothers, Ito 24(2)(1) Kuber Chamber, Cts बनाम/ C-13 Bandra Kurla 141-A, Next To Cod, Complex, Bandra(E) Vs. Dutt Mandir Road, Mumbai Malad (E) Mumbai -400097 (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aaafk0111D Assessment Year: 2003-04 Ito 24(2)(1) Kamala Brothers, C-13 Bandra Kurla Kuber Chamber, Cts 141- बनाम/ Complex, Bandra(E) A, Next To Cod, Dutt Vs. Mumbai Mandir Road, Malad (E) Mumbai -400097 (Revenue) (Respondent) P.A. No. Aaafk0111D C.O. No.180/Mum/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1334/Mum/2011) Assessment Year: 2003-04

Section 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 50C

…tals could not have been presumed on the basis of market rates. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Jodhpur Bench of ITAT in the case of Lake Palace Hotels & Motels Ltd. 83 TTJ 1031 which was later confirmed by Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court reported at 321 ITR 165, for the proposition that there is no provision under the law to tax notional amount of lease rent on deemed or presumptive basis. 4.5. On the other hand, Ld. DR has submitted that impugned transaction is a transaction of sale, which has been disguised as a lease transaction. It was also submitted that lower authorities have rightly treated the…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Smt. Divya Jain, New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the Revenue Dismissed and Cross

ITA 4315/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Md. Mohsin Alam, CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153C

…ITA NO. 4315/Del/2011 & CO No. 355/Del/2011 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 4315/Del/2011 A.Y. : 2007-08 ACIT, Central Circle-03, VS. Smt. Divya Jain, Room No. 355, 3rd floor, C-215, Vivek Vihar, Delhi Jhnadewalan Extension, (PAN: AECPJ4086M) New Delhi – 110 055 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) AND C.O. No. 355/Del/2011 (In ITA No. 4315/Del/2011) A.Y. : 2007-08 Smt. Divya Jain, Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-03, 3rd C-215, Vivek Vihar, Delhi Room No. 355, floor, (PAN: AECPJ4086M) Jhnadewalan Extension, New…