CIT v. Lakshman Swaroop Gupta & Brothers

100 ITR 222Reported decision1975#8844 most cited
12

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 68Section 22Section 23Section 234BSection 40(a)(ia)Section 43CBSection 115BEESection 132

Issues it is cited on

section 23(5)section 23(4)annual letting valuesection 106annual valuesection 23(1)project completion methodhouse property incomesection 24(a)section 43cjoint development agreementfresh tangible material

Judgments citing CIT v. Lakshman Swaroop Gupta & Brothers

SMT. ARUNA JAIN,MEGHNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER JHABUA, JHABUA

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 195/IND/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Apr 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2011-12 Smt. Aruna Jain, Ito 512, Near Railway Station, Jhabua बनाम/ Meghnagar, Jhabua Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Ainpj0505E Assessee By Shri Anil Kamal Garg & Shri Nishit Doshi, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.04.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 17.04.2026

Section 143(3)

…आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, इंदौर"ायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year:2011-12 Smt. Aruna Jain, ITO 512, Near Railway Station, Jhabua बनाम/ Meghnagar, Jhabua Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) PAN: AINPJ0505E Assessee by Shri Anil Kamal Garg & Shri Nishit Doshi, ARs Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 13.04.2026 Date of Pronouncement 17.04.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by order of first appeal dated 30.06.2023 passed by learned…

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. BSR BUILDERS ENGINEERS CONTRACTORS , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18

ITA 1561/CHNY/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1311 & 1312/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 V. Bsr Builders Engineers Contractors, The Dcit, No.28, Bsr Janus, Tank Bund Road, Central Circle-2(3), Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. Chennai. [Pan: Aagfb 7140 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1274 & 1561/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2016-17 V. The Dcit / Acit, Bsr Builders Engineers Central Circle-2(3), Contractors, Chennai. No.28, Bsr Janus, Tank Bund Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. [Pan: Aagfb 7140 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.G. Baskar, Advocate &For Respondent: Mr.Nishanth Rao, JCIT

…he IT Act. Dr. Daniel is justified in submitting that this is not permissible. 11. The view taken by this Court in CIT v. Bhaichand H. Gandhi [1982] 11 Taxman 59/[1983] 141 ITR 67 and by Rajasthan High Court in CIT v. Lakshman Swaroop Gupta & Brothers [1975] 100 ITR 222, supports the contentions raised by Dr. Daniel. Similarly, we find that in Bhor Industries Ltd. v. CIT [1961] 42 ITR 57 (SC), the Hon'ble Apex Court in the context of provisions of the Merged States (Taxation Concessions) Order (1949) has interpreted the expression "any previous year" to mean as not referring to all the previous years but, the pr…

BSR BUILDERS ENGINEERS CONTRACTORS,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18

ITA 1312/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1311 & 1312/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 V. Bsr Builders Engineers Contractors, The Dcit, No.28, Bsr Janus, Tank Bund Road, Central Circle-2(3), Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. Chennai. [Pan: Aagfb 7140 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1274 & 1561/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2016-17 V. The Dcit / Acit, Bsr Builders Engineers Central Circle-2(3), Contractors, Chennai. No.28, Bsr Janus, Tank Bund Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. [Pan: Aagfb 7140 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.G. Baskar, Advocate &For Respondent: Mr.Nishanth Rao, JCIT

…he IT Act. Dr. Daniel is justified in submitting that this is not permissible. 11. The view taken by this Court in CIT v. Bhaichand H. Gandhi [1982] 11 Taxman 59/[1983] 141 ITR 67 and by Rajasthan High Court in CIT v. Lakshman Swaroop Gupta & Brothers [1975] 100 ITR 222, supports the contentions raised by Dr. Daniel. Similarly, we find that in Bhor Industries Ltd. v. CIT [1961] 42 ITR 57 (SC), the Hon'ble Apex Court in the context of provisions of the Merged States (Taxation Concessions) Order (1949) has interpreted the expression "any previous year" to mean as not referring to all the previous years but, the pr…

BSR BUILDERS ENGINEERS CONTRACTORS, ,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENT. CIRCLE-2(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18

ITA 1311/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1311 & 1312/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 V. Bsr Builders Engineers Contractors, The Dcit, No.28, Bsr Janus, Tank Bund Road, Central Circle-2(3), Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. Chennai. [Pan: Aagfb 7140 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1274 & 1561/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2016-17 V. The Dcit / Acit, Bsr Builders Engineers Central Circle-2(3), Contractors, Chennai. No.28, Bsr Janus, Tank Bund Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. [Pan: Aagfb 7140 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.G. Baskar, Advocate &For Respondent: Mr.Nishanth Rao, JCIT

…he IT Act. Dr. Daniel is justified in submitting that this is not permissible. 11. The view taken by this Court in CIT v. Bhaichand H. Gandhi [1982] 11 Taxman 59/[1983] 141 ITR 67 and by Rajasthan High Court in CIT v. Lakshman Swaroop Gupta & Brothers [1975] 100 ITR 222, supports the contentions raised by Dr. Daniel. Similarly, we find that in Bhor Industries Ltd. v. CIT [1961] 42 ITR 57 (SC), the Hon'ble Apex Court in the context of provisions of the Merged States (Taxation Concessions) Order (1949) has interpreted the expression "any previous year" to mean as not referring to all the previous years but, the pr…

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. BSR BUILDERS ENGINEERS CONTRACTORS, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18

ITA 1274/CHNY/2025[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1311 & 1312/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 V. Bsr Builders Engineers Contractors, The Dcit, No.28, Bsr Janus, Tank Bund Road, Central Circle-2(3), Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. Chennai. [Pan: Aagfb 7140 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1274 & 1561/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2016-17 V. The Dcit / Acit, Bsr Builders Engineers Central Circle-2(3), Contractors, Chennai. No.28, Bsr Janus, Tank Bund Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. [Pan: Aagfb 7140 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.G. Baskar, Advocate &For Respondent: Mr.Nishanth Rao, JCIT

…he IT Act. Dr. Daniel is justified in submitting that this is not permissible. 11. The view taken by this Court in CIT v. Bhaichand H. Gandhi [1982] 11 Taxman 59/[1983] 141 ITR 67 and by Rajasthan High Court in CIT v. Lakshman Swaroop Gupta & Brothers [1975] 100 ITR 222, supports the contentions raised by Dr. Daniel. Similarly, we find that in Bhor Industries Ltd. v. CIT [1961] 42 ITR 57 (SC), the Hon'ble Apex Court in the context of provisions of the Merged States (Taxation Concessions) Order (1949) has interpreted the expression "any previous year" to mean as not referring to all the previous years but, the pr…

DHARMANANDAN DEVELOPERS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, Ground No. 2 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 96/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Divatia, & Shri Samir Vora, ARsFor Respondent: Shri B. P. Srivastava, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 250Section 68

…the IT Act. Dr. Daniel is justified in submitting that this is not permissible. 11. The view taken by this Court in CIT v. Bhaichand H. Gandhi [1982] 11 Taxman 59/[1983] 141 ITR 67 and by Rajasthan High Court in CIT v. Lakshman Swaroop Gupta & Brothers [1975] 100 ITR 222, supports the contentions raised by Dr. Daniel. Similarly, we find that in Bhor Industries Ltd. v. CIT [1961] 42 ITR 57 (SC), the Hon'ble Apex Court in the context of provisions of the Merged States (Taxation Concessions) Order (1949) has interpreted the expression "any previous year" to mean as not referring to all the previous years but, the pr…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -6(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SPARKLE CLEAN TECH PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is\ndismissed

ITA 959/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2025AY 2018-19
Section 115BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…IT Act. Dr. Daniel is justified\nin submitting that this is not permissible\n11. The view taken by this Court in CIT v. Bhaichand H.\nGandhi [1982] 11 Taxman 59/[1983] 141 ITR 67 and by\nRajasthan High Court in CIT v. Lakshman Swaroop Gupta &\nBrothers [1975] 100 ITR 222, supports the contentions raised\nby Dr. Daniel. Similarly, we find that in Bhor Industries Ltd. v.\nCIT [1961] 42 ITR 57 (SC), the Hon'ble Apex Court in the\ncontext of provisions of the Merged States (Taxation\nConcessions) Order (1949) has interpreted the expression \"any\nprevious year\" to mean as not referring to all the previous\nyears but…

KEN FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT - 4, MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 894/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanvk-Vk-La- 894@Eaqcbz@2021 ¼Fu-Oa- 2010&11½ Ken Financial Services Ltd. 101, Shah Arcade, A Wing, Shah Archade Sra Chs Ltd Rani Sati Marg, Malad (E) Mumbai-400 097 ..... Vihykfkhz/Appellant Pan No. Aaack4929K Cuke Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Room No. 629, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, ..... Izfroknh/Respondent Mumbai-400 020

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram & Shri Rahul Hakani izfroknh }kjk@For Respondent: Shri Byomakesh P. K. Panda, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…the IT Act. Dr. Daniel is justified in submitting that this is not permissible. 11. The view taken by this Court in CIT v. Bhaichand H. Gandhi [1982] 11 Taxman 59/[1983] 141 ITR 67 and by Rajasthan High Court in CIT v. Lakshman Swaroop Gupta & Brothers [1975] 100 ITR 222, supports the contentions raised by Dr. Daniel. Similarly, we find that in Bhor Industries Ltd. v. CIT [1961] 42 ITR 57 (SC), the Hon'ble Apex Court in the context of provisions of the Merged States (Taxation Concessions) Order (1949) has interpreted the expression "any previous year" to mean as not referring to all the previous years but, the pr…

DCIT 4 (3)(1), MUMBAI vs. SHRI MOHIT KEEPAK KAMBOJ, MUMBAI

ITA 4285/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4285/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6384/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit-4(3)(1) बिधम/ Shri Mohit Deepak Room No. 649, 6Th Floor, Kamboj Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- A-15, Venus Co-Op. 400020. Society, R. G. Thandani Marg, Mumbai-400018. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.801/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit, Cir-6(3)(2) बिधम/ Shri Mohit Deepak R. No. 522, 5Th Floor, Kamboj Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. A-15, Venus Co-Op. Road, Mumbai-400020. Society, R. G. Thandani Marg, Mumbai-400018 स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Alcpk2213Q (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Satyaprakash Singh Revenue By: Shri P. R. Mane सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash SinghFor Respondent: Shri P. R. Mane
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 23Section 68

…he IT Act. Dr. Daniel is justified in submitting that this is not permissible. 11. The view taken by this Court in CIT v. Bhaichand H. Gandhi [1982] 11 Taxman 59/[1983] 141 ITR 67 and by Rajasthan High Court in CIT v. Lakshman Swaroop Gupta & Brothers [1975] 100 ITR 222, supports the contentions raised by Dr. Daniel. Similarly, we find that in Bhor Industries Ltd. v. CIT [1961] 42 ITR 57 (SC), the Hon'ble Apex Court in the context of provisions of the Merged States (Taxation Concessions) A.Ys. 2010-11 & 2012-13 Mohit Deepak Kamboj Order (1949) has interpreted the expression "any previous year" to mean as not ref…

ACIT CIR-6(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. SHRI MOHIT DEEPAK KAMBOJ, MUMBAI

ITA 801/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4285/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6384/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit-4(3)(1) बिधम/ Shri Mohit Deepak Room No. 649, 6Th Floor, Kamboj Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- A-15, Venus Co-Op. 400020. Society, R. G. Thandani Marg, Mumbai-400018. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.801/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit, Cir-6(3)(2) बिधम/ Shri Mohit Deepak R. No. 522, 5Th Floor, Kamboj Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. A-15, Venus Co-Op. Road, Mumbai-400020. Society, R. G. Thandani Marg, Mumbai-400018 स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Alckp2213G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Satyaprakash Singh Revenue By: Shri P. R. Mane सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash SinghFor Respondent: Shri P. R. Mane
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 23Section 68

…he IT Act. Dr. Daniel is justified in submitting that this is not permissible. 11. The view taken by this Court in CIT v. Bhaichand H. Gandhi [1982] 11 Taxman 59/[1983] 141 ITR 67 and by Rajasthan High Court in CIT v. Lakshman Swaroop Gupta & Brothers [1975] 100 ITR 222, supports the contentions raised by Dr. Daniel. Similarly, we find that in Bhor Industries Ltd. v. CIT [1961] 42 ITR 57 (SC), the Hon'ble Apex Court in the context of provisions of the Merged States (Taxation Concessions) A.Ys. 2010-11 & 2012-13 Mohit Deepak Kamboj Order (1949) has interpreted the expression "any previous year" to mean as not ref…

DCIT 4 (3)(1), MUMBAI vs. MOHIT DEEPAK KAMBOJ, MUMBAI

ITA 6384/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4285/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6384/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit-4(3)(1) बिधम/ Shri Mohit Deepak Room No. 649, 6Th Floor, Kamboj Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- A-15, Venus Co-Op. 400020. Society, R. G. Thandani Marg, Mumbai-400018. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.801/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit, Cir-6(3)(2) बिधम/ Shri Mohit Deepak R. No. 522, 5Th Floor, Kamboj Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. A-15, Venus Co-Op. Road, Mumbai-400020. Society, R. G. Thandani Marg, Mumbai-400018 स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Alckp2213G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Satyaprakash Singh Revenue By: Shri P. R. Mane सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash SinghFor Respondent: Shri P. R. Mane
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 23Section 68

…he IT Act. Dr. Daniel is justified in submitting that this is not permissible. 11. The view taken by this Court in CIT v. Bhaichand H. Gandhi [1982] 11 Taxman 59/[1983] 141 ITR 67 and by Rajasthan High Court in CIT v. Lakshman Swaroop Gupta & Brothers [1975] 100 ITR 222, supports the contentions raised by Dr. Daniel. Similarly, we find that in Bhor Industries Ltd. v. CIT [1961] 42 ITR 57 (SC), the Hon'ble Apex Court in the context of provisions of the Merged States (Taxation Concessions) A.Ys. 2010-11 & 2012-13 Mohit Deepak Kamboj Order (1949) has interpreted the expression "any previous year" to mean as not ref…

RAKYAN BEVERAGES PRIVATE LIMITED ,RAIGARH vs. ACIT 5(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 120/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri J. D. Mistry & MadhurFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Mane (DR)
Section 68

…he IT Act. Dr. Daniel is justified in submitting that this is not permissible. 11. The view taken by this Court in CIT v. Bhaichand H. Gandhi [1982] 11 Taxman 59/[1983] 141 ITR 67 and by Rajasthan High Court in CIT v. Lakshman Swaroop Gupta & Brothers [1975] 100 ITR 222, supports the contentions raised by Dr. Daniel. Similarly, we find that in Bhor Industries Ltd. v. CIT [1961] 42 ITR 57 (SC), the Hon'ble Apex Court in the context of provisions of the Merged States (Taxation Concessions) Order (1949) has interpreted the expression "any previous year" to mean as not referring to all the previous years but, the pr…