CIT v. Moni Kumar Subba

333 ITR 38High Court2011#1465 most cited

What is CIT v. Moni Kumar Subba authority for?

Notional interest on an interest-free security deposit cannot be considered as actual or deemed rent under Section 23(1) of the Act. For determining Annual Letting Value (ALV) under Section 23(1)(a), it must be in accordance with municipal laws, considering extraneous circumstances, but not exceeding the standard rent as per rent control legislation.

78

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,459 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v Moni Kumar Subba · 333 ITR 38 · Section 23(1) · Section 23(1)(a) · notional interest · interest-free security deposit · deemed rent · annual letting value · ALV · municipal rentable value · standard rent · rent control

Also reported as

10 Taxmann.com 195

Sections most often in play

Section 1961Section 143(3)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 23Section 23(1)(a)Section 131
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

self occupied propertysection 23(1)section 80lsection 23(2)interest on interestannual letting valueannual valuesection 23(1)(a)section 2(31)section 22section 40a(3)section 23

Judgments citing CIT v. Moni Kumar Subba

Sri Sanjiv Dua, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle-36, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1807/KOL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Oct 2019AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Amit Saraj, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Nicolas Murmu, Addl. CIT, DR
Section 143(3)

…I.T.A No.1807/Kol/2016 Sri Sanjiv Dua IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH: KOLKATA Before: Shri P. M. Jagtap, Vice President and Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member I.T.A No.1807/Kol/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Sri Sanjiv Dua Appellant [PAN:ADVPD8606M] Vs ACIT, Circle-36, Kolkata Respondent For the Appellant : Shri Amit Saraj, FCA For the Respondent : Shri Nicolas Murmu, Addl. CIT, DR Date of hearing : 17.07.2019 Date of pronouncement : 01.10.2019 ORDER Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, JM: This appeal by the assessee against the order dated 01.06.2016 passed by the Commissioner of Income T…

DCIT, Cir-6, Kolkata vs. M/S Avantha Realty Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 895/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Sept 2019AY 2009-2010

Bench: The Hon’Ble High Court Of Delhi & On Considering The Facts & Circumstances, The Hon’Ble High Court Of Delhi Was Pleased To Hold That The Delay Of 19 Days Is Not Extraordinary & Explanation Offered By The Appellant-Revenue To Be Plausible & On Merits. The Hon’Ble High Court Was Pleased To Set Aside The Order Passed By This Tribunal & Restored The Appeal To The File Of This Tribunal For Disposal In Accordance With Law. Therefore The Delay Of 19 Days Are Condoned.

For Appellant: Shri C. J. Singh, JCIT- Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Bhattacharya, AR
Section 143(3)Section 23(1)Section 40

…I.T.A No.895/Kol/2014 M/s Avantha Realty Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH: KOLKATA Before: Shri P. M. Jagtap, Vice President and Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member I.T.A No.895/Kol/2014 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) DCIT, Circle-6, Kolkata Appellant Vs M/s Avantha Realty Ltd. Respondent [PAN:AAACJ8030A] For the Appellant : Shri C. J. Singh, JCIT- Sr. DR For the Respondent : Shri Sanjay Bhattacharya, AR Date of hearing : 02.07.2019 Date of pronouncement : 30.09.2019 ORDER Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, JM: This appeal by the Revenue against the order dated 16.01.2014 passed by the Commis…

Filmkraft Productions (I) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 16(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee for Assessment Year 2011-12 & 2012-13 are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 5183/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Gubgotra, D.R

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/s. Filmkraft ACIT Circle -16(1), Productions (I) P. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, B/27, Commerce Centre, M.K. Marg, Vs. Off New Link Road, New Marine Lines, Andheri – West, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400 053 PAN: AAACF3549E (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri K. Gopal, A.R. Smt. Neha Paranjpe, Shri Sumanta Sen, A.R. Revenue by : Shri Rajeev Gubgotra, D.R. Date of Hearing : 27.08.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 30.09.2019 O R D E…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Dr. Prannoy Roy, New Delhi

ITA 2707/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Girish Dave, Adv
Section 147Section 148

…property at Hauz Khas was Rs. 1,53,586/- and such a value represents annual value of the property u/s 23(1) of the Act and thus e ought to have followed the judgment of Full Bench of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Moni Kumar Subba reported in 333 ITR 38 logically directed the Assessing officer to adopt the annual value at Rs. 1,53,586/- instead of Rs. 3,60,000/-. It is therefore, prayed that it be held that assessment made by the learned Assessing Officer, and sustained by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is without jurisdiction. It be further held that additions made of Rs. 1,33,…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Mrs. Radhika Roy, New Delhi

ITA 2706/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Girish Dave, Adv
Section 147Section 148

…property at Hauz Khas was Rs. 1,53,586/- and such a value represents annual value of the property u/s 23(1) of the Act and thus e ought to have followed the judgment of Full Bench of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Moni Kumar Subba reported in 333 ITR 38 logically directed the Assessing officer to adopt the annual value at Rs. 1,53,586/- instead of Rs. 3,60,000/-. It is therefore, prayed that it be held that assessment made by the learned Assessing Officer, and sustained by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is without jurisdiction. It be further held that additions made of Rs. 1,33,…

Dr. Prannoy Roy, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 2022/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Girish Dave, Adv
Section 147Section 148

…property at Hauz Khas was Rs. 1,53,586/- and such a value represents annual value of the property u/s 23(1) of the Act and thus e ought to have followed the judgment of Full Bench of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Moni Kumar Subba reported in 333 ITR 38 logically directed the Assessing officer to adopt the annual value at Rs. 1,53,586/- instead of Rs. 3,60,000/-. It is therefore, prayed that it be held that assessment made by the learned Assessing Officer, and sustained by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is without jurisdiction. It be further held that additions made of Rs. 1,33,…

Dr. Prannoy Roy, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 2021/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Girish Dave, Adv
Section 147Section 148

…property at Hauz Khas was Rs. 1,53,586/- and such a value represents annual value of the property u/s 23(1) of the Act and thus e ought to have followed the judgment of Full Bench of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Moni Kumar Subba reported in 333 ITR 38 logically directed the Assessing officer to adopt the annual value at Rs. 1,53,586/- instead of Rs. 3,60,000/-. It is therefore, prayed that it be held that assessment made by the learned Assessing Officer, and sustained by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is without jurisdiction. It be further held that additions made of Rs. 1,33,…

Smt. Radhika Roy, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 2020/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Girish Dave, Adv
Section 147Section 148

…property at Hauz Khas was Rs. 1,53,586/- and such a value represents annual value of the property u/s 23(1) of the Act and thus e ought to have followed the judgment of Full Bench of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Moni Kumar Subba reported in 333 ITR 38 logically directed the Assessing officer to adopt the annual value at Rs. 1,53,586/- instead of Rs. 3,60,000/-. It is therefore, prayed that it be held that assessment made by the learned Assessing Officer, and sustained by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is without jurisdiction. It be further held that additions made of Rs. 1,33,…

Smt. Radhika Roy, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 2019/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Girish Dave, Adv
Section 147Section 148

…property at Hauz Khas was Rs. 1,53,586/- and such a value represents annual value of the property u/s 23(1) of the Act and thus e ought to have followed the judgment of Full Bench of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Moni Kumar Subba reported in 333 ITR 38 logically directed the Assessing officer to adopt the annual value at Rs. 1,53,586/- instead of Rs. 3,60,000/-. It is therefore, prayed that it be held that assessment made by the learned Assessing Officer, and sustained by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is without jurisdiction. It be further held that additions made of Rs. 1,33,…

Indokem Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT Cir 6, Mumbai

In the result all the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 3288/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi (AR)For Respondent: Shri Awungshi Gimson (DR)
Section 23Section 23(1)(a)Section 263

…not in accordance with the directions of the Hon’ble ITAT for A.Y. 2001- 02 to 2006-07; b. The ALV was not determined as per the provisions of the Act and as per the decision of the Full Bench of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT v Moni Kumar Subba 333 ITR 38.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the issue for revision u/s 263 of the Act arises in respect of assessee company for the A.Y.2008-09 & 2009-10. The earlier name of the assessee company was Radio Component & Transistors Ltd. (in short RCTL) which had now amalgamated into new entity namely M/s. Indochem Ltd. The assessee company got the imp…

ACIT 23(3), Mumbai vs. Shailaja S. Hemdev, Mumbai

ITA 2926/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Smt. Shailaja S. Hemdev 11/12Th Income Tax-23(3) Floor, Blair Room No.104, 1St Floor Apartments, Dr. Amberjkar Matru Mandir, Road, Bandra (W) Mumbai Mumbai – 400 050 Pan/Gir No.Abbph2668D (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 23Section 23(1)(a)Section 23(1)(b)Section 24Section 54

…ue submits that the Tribunal has referred to both the sections 23(1)(a) and 23(1)(b) of the I.T. Act. It also relied upon the judgment of the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Moni Kumar Subba reported in [2011] 333 ITR 38 (Del). Mr.Ahuja, therefore, submits that the reference to sub-clause (a) of section (1) of section 23 of the I.T. Act is correct. 6. Without entering into this controversy but finding that the notional interest on such security deposits cannot be taken into consideration for determining and computing the annual letting value, we answer this questi…

Ivp Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 6(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes with the above directions

ITA 4417/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singhaayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 4417/Mum/2016 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2011-12) Ivp Ltd. The Income Tax Officer, S.N. Redij Marg, Ghorupdeo, Ward 6(1)(2), Mumbai Vs. Mumbai-400 053 .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) स्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aaaci0992A अपीलाथी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri Divyesh Shah, Ar प्रत्यथी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri B.S. Bist, Dr ुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01.11.2018 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 01.11.2018 Aadosa / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Divyesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.S. Bist, DR
Section 143(3)

…the AO. I find that this issue is squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Tip Top Typography (2014) 368 ITR 330(Bom), wherein the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Moni Kumar Subba (2011) 333 ITR 38 (Del) was considered and find that Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Tip Top Typography (supra) held as under:- “48. We are not in agreement with Shri Chhotaray that the municipal rateable value cannot be accepted as a bona fide rental value of the property and it must be discarded straightway in all cases. There cannot be a blanket rejection of the…

Hightech Realties P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 12(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 2728/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2728/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Hightech Realties Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Ito Ward 12(2)(4) 1St Floor, Ruchi House, Plot Mumbai. Vs. No. 169, Aarey Colony, Goregaon (W), Mumbai- 400065. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacch0026J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Bhupendra Shah (Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 24.10.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31.10.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 08.03.2012 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 20, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2013- 14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “[A] Grounds Of Appeal; 1. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned A.O, Erred In Adding Rs 63,95,231. Under The Head “Income From House Property" & The Commissioner Of Income Tax(A) Erred In Confirming Addition Of Rs.12.60.000/-

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah (AR)For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 23(1)Section 234Section 24ASection 27l

…tion of 30%) on account of security deposit even though this addition was never made by the Assessing Officer and therefore amounts to enhancement without notice to the Appellant and also overlooking the judgment of CIT v/s MONI KLMAR SUBBA reported in (2011) 333 ITR 38 (Delhi)(FB). 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned A.O, erred in initialing penalty u/s 27l(l)(c) and interest u/s 234. Relief Prayed: The appellant therefore prays as follows, 1. To delete the addition of Rs 12,60,000/- under the head ''Income from House Property." 2. To quash the addition of Rs 12,00,000/- made by…

Anand Automobiles, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 23(2), Mumbai

In the result, appealsare partly allowed

ITA 6496/MUM/2016[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Oct 2018AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-00 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 & Assessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Anand Automobiles Asst. Commissioner Of Magnet House, N.M. Vs. Income Tax Circle 29(1) Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai, Mumbai-400038 Pratyakshkarbhavan, C- 10, Bandrakurla Complex, Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadfa9171D

For Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Yadav, DR
Section 143(3)Section 23(1)(a)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-00 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 & Assessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Anand Automobiles Asst. Commissioner of Magnet House, N.M. Vs. Income Tax Circle 29(1) Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai, Mumbai-400038 PratyakshkarBhavan, C- 10, BandraKurla Complex, Mumbai-400051. PAN No. AADFA9171D Appellant Respondent Anand Automobiles : Mr. H…

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)

…(a) of the Act. 4.3 The Ld. counsel of the assessee, on the other hand, submitted that issue in dispute involved is covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the assessee’s own case for assessment year 2001-02 to 2003-04, which is reported in 333 ITR 38. The Ld. counsel submitted that issue of rental income from the very same properties and the same security deposits was before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and the Hon’ble High Court confirmed the finding of the Tribunal setting aside the addition of notional interest on interest-free security deposit for arriving at Annual Letting Value (ALV). He…

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)

…(a) of the Act. 4.3 The Ld. counsel of the assessee, on the other hand, submitted that issue in dispute involved is covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the assessee’s own case for assessment year 2001-02 to 2003-04, which is reported in 333 ITR 38. The Ld. counsel submitted that issue of rental income from the very same properties and the same security deposits was before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and the Hon’ble High Court confirmed the finding of the Tribunal setting aside the addition of notional interest on interest-free security deposit for arriving at Annual Letting Value (ALV). He…

ITO 1(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Cyrus Investment P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 299/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhito- 1(1)(2) M/S Cyrus Investments Pvt. Ltd. 534, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. 41/44, Shahpoorji Pallonji Centre, Road, Mumbai-400020. Vs. Minoo Desai Marg, Colaba, Mumbai-400005. Pan: Aaacc2880P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Love Kumar (DR)For Respondent: Shri Biharilal (AR)
Section 14ASection 23(1)Section 23(1)(a)Section 253Section 254(1)

…to refer to the recent decision of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Tip Top Typography (supra) wherein Hon‟ble Bombay High Court affirmed the following view taken by Full Bench of Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Mani Kumar Subba (2011) 333 ITR 38(Del HC FB) as under: " 45.....Thus the rateable value , if correctly determined, under the municipal law can be taken as ALV under Section 23(1)(a) of the Act. To that extent we agree with the contention of the learned Counsel of the assessee. However, we make it clear that rateable value is not binding on the Assessing Officer. If the Assessing…

Hrithik Roshan, Mumbai vs. Joint CIT RG 16(1), Mumbai

Appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our above order

ITA 3513/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

For Appellant: K.Gopal & Neha Paranjpe, Ld. ARsFor Respondent: Manoj Kumar Singh, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 23(1)(a)Section 24

…ITA.No.3513/Mum/2017 Hrithik Roshan Assessment Year-2012-13 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “एच” "ायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल, लेखा सद" एवं "ी रिवश सूद, "ाियक सद" के सम"। BEFORE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.3513/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Hrithik Roshan Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-16(1) B/27, Commerce Centre बनाम/ Off New Link Road Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. Andheri (West) New Marine Lines Mumbai-400 053 Mumbai-400 020 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AABPN-2790-F (अपीलाथ"/Appe…

Asst CIT 16(2), Mumbai vs. Iqbal M Chagla, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5593/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Asstt. Commissioner Of Shri Iqbal M. Chagla, Income-Tax-16(2), C Block, 3Rd Floor, Room No. 440, 4Th Floor, Pallonji Mansion, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. New Cuffe Parade, Colaba, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400005 Pan: Aabpc2830K (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh (Dr) Assessee By : Ms. Aarti Sathe( Ar) Date Of Hearing: 17/08/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 17/08/2018

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Sathe( AR)For Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh (DR)
Section 143Section 14A

…in directing to the compute the ‘Income from House property’ on the basis of ‘Municipal Rateable Value’ although the Municiapl Rateable Value’ has been held as not binding on the Assessing Officer by the Delhi High court in the case of CIT Vs Moni Kumar Subha 333 ITR 38 (Del)(HC) 2011 and this view has been upheld by the jurisdictional High Court in its judgment dated 8th August, 2014 in the case of CIT-12 Vs Tip Top Typography [2014] 48 taxmann.com 191 [Bom] [HC]. 3. Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT (A) was justified in directing to the compute the ‘Income from House pro…

Marine Container Services, Mumbai vs. DCIT 12 (2), Mumbai

In the result this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical

ITA 4158/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Marine Container Services, Dy.Cit, Circle-17(2), Room No. 123, 1St Floor, 71, World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400005. Mumbai-20. Pan: Aaafm9838J Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri B.V. Jhaveri (Ar) Respondent By : Shri T.A. Khan (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 16.05.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.08.2018 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh;

For Appellant: Shri B.V. Jhaveri (AR)For Respondent: Shri T.A. Khan (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 23(1)(a)Section 253Section 254(1)

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s Marine Container Services, Dy.CIT, Circle-17(2), Room No. 123, 1st Floor, 71, World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400005. Mumbai-20. PAN: AAAFM9838J Appellant Respondent Appellant by : Shri B.V. Jhaveri (AR) Respondent by : Shri T.A. Khan (DR) Date of Hearing : 16.05.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 08.08.2018 ORDER UNDER SECTION 254(1)OF INCOME TAX ACT PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. This appeal by assessee under section 253 of th…