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.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Moni Kumar Subba?

78 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Moni Kumar Subba (333 ITR 38), spanning 2011 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Moni Kumar Subba come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 1961, Section 143(3), Section 139(1), Section 142(1), Section 143(2), Section 23.

CIT v. Moni Kumar Subba (333 ITR 38)

Indokem Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT Cir 6, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 3287/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Jacinta Zimik Vashai

Section 147Section 22Section 23Section 23(1)Section 263

…by the A0 after duly considering the directions of Hon’ble ITAT. b. not appreciating that the AO had accepted the actual rent received as the basis for determining ALV of the property, after considering the ratio laid down in the decision of Moni Kumar Subba 333 ITR 38 (Del).” 3. At the outset, the learned Counsel for the assessee first of all drew our attention to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai ‘D’ Bench decision in assessee’s own case for AY 2001-02 to 2006, wherein Tribunal vide order dated 30-12-2011 has decided this issue and remand the matter back to the file of the AO vide Para 16 to 17 as under:…

Indokem Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT Cr 6, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 3286/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Jacinta Zimik Vashai

Section 147Section 22Section 23Section 23(1)Section 263

…by the A0 after duly considering the directions of Hon’ble ITAT. b. not appreciating that the AO had accepted the actual rent received as the basis for determining ALV of the property, after considering the ratio laid down in the decision of Moni Kumar Subba 333 ITR 38 (Del).” 3. At the outset, the learned Counsel for the assessee first of all drew our attention to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai ‘D’ Bench decision in assessee’s own case for AY 2001-02 to 2006, wherein Tribunal vide order dated 30-12-2011 has decided this issue and remand the matter back to the file of the AO vide Para 16 to 17 as under:…

Indokem Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT Cr 6, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 3285/MUM/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Jacinta Zimik Vashai

Section 147Section 22Section 23Section 23(1)Section 263

…by the A0 after duly considering the directions of Hon’ble ITAT. b. not appreciating that the AO had accepted the actual rent received as the basis for determining ALV of the property, after considering the ratio laid down in the decision of Moni Kumar Subba 333 ITR 38 (Del).” 3. At the outset, the learned Counsel for the assessee first of all drew our attention to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai ‘D’ Bench decision in assessee’s own case for AY 2001-02 to 2006, wherein Tribunal vide order dated 30-12-2011 has decided this issue and remand the matter back to the file of the AO vide Para 16 to 17 as under:…

Indokem Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT Cr 6, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 3284/MUM/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Jacinta Zimik Vashai

Section 147Section 22Section 23Section 23(1)Section 263

…by the A0 after duly considering the directions of Hon’ble ITAT. b. not appreciating that the AO had accepted the actual rent received as the basis for determining ALV of the property, after considering the ratio laid down in the decision of Moni Kumar Subba 333 ITR 38 (Del).” 3. At the outset, the learned Counsel for the assessee first of all drew our attention to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai ‘D’ Bench decision in assessee’s own case for AY 2001-02 to 2006, wherein Tribunal vide order dated 30-12-2011 has decided this issue and remand the matter back to the file of the AO vide Para 16 to 17 as under:…

Indokem Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT Cr 6, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 3283/MUM/2014[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Jacinta Zimik Vashai

Section 147Section 22Section 23Section 23(1)Section 263

…by the A0 after duly considering the directions of Hon’ble ITAT. b. not appreciating that the AO had accepted the actual rent received as the basis for determining ALV of the property, after considering the ratio laid down in the decision of Moni Kumar Subba 333 ITR 38 (Del).” 3. At the outset, the learned Counsel for the assessee first of all drew our attention to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai ‘D’ Bench decision in assessee’s own case for AY 2001-02 to 2006, wherein Tribunal vide order dated 30-12-2011 has decided this issue and remand the matter back to the file of the AO vide Para 16 to 17 as under:…

Indokem Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT Cir 6, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 3282/MUM/2014[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2018AY 2001-02

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Jacinta Zimik Vashai

Section 147Section 22Section 23Section 23(1)Section 263

…by the A0 after duly considering the directions of Hon’ble ITAT. b. not appreciating that the AO had accepted the actual rent received as the basis for determining ALV of the property, after considering the ratio laid down in the decision of Moni Kumar Subba 333 ITR 38 (Del).” 3. At the outset, the learned Counsel for the assessee first of all drew our attention to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai ‘D’ Bench decision in assessee’s own case for AY 2001-02 to 2006, wherein Tribunal vide order dated 30-12-2011 has decided this issue and remand the matter back to the file of the AO vide Para 16 to 17 as under:…

Vidya Education Investments Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6177/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, Sr. D.R

…nual letting value of the property. The Learned Counsel for the Assessee relied upon decision of the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Moni 10 ITA.No.6177/Del./2014 Vidya Education Investments Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. Kumar Subba (2011) 333 ITR 38 (Del.) in which, in para-20 the conclusion of the High Court is reproduced as under : “(i) Annual letting value would be the sum at which the property may be reasonable let out by a willing lessor to a willing lessee uninfluenced by any extraneous circumstances. (ii) An inflated or deflated rent based on extraneous consideration may take it out…

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

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 5354/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Bhupendra Shah, ARFor Respondent: PR Chauhan, DR

Section 143(3)Section 23Section 23(1)(a)Section 23(1)(c)

…les laid down in the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and referred to by the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court would govern the enquiry. 6. Even the same issue has been decided by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Moni Kumar Subba [2011] 333 ITR 38 (Delhi) (FB) that even ALV cannot be determined by adding notional interest on the interest free deposit and according to Hon’ble High Court that it is not permissible. Hon’ble Delhi High Court and Hon’ble Bombay High Court, both are in consonance that only value fixed by Municipal Authorities can be a rational yardstick for computing deemed rent…

ACIT - 1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Cyrus Investments Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Cyrus Investments Ltd.), Mumbai

In the result , appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 6414/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6414/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Assistant Commissioner Of बिाम/ M/S Cyrus Investments Income-Tax-1(1)(1) Private Limited 579, Aayakar Bhawan Esplanade House, Fort V. M K Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400002 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaacc2880P (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri BeharilalFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 68

…e 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…

ITO WD 1 (2)(2), Mumbai vs. Sudheer Omprakash Bahl, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4525/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am Ito Wd 1(2)(2) Vs. Shri Sudheer Omprakash Bahl, Mumbai 41-B, Jolly Maker Apartment, 1 Cuffe Parade Mumbai – 400 005 Pan/Gir No. Aampb8549F Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 22Section 23Section 23(1)

…r Nos.2162, 2163, 2164, 2165 and 2166/Mum/2009 dated 18.11.2011 for the A. Yrs. 1999-2000,2000-01,2001- 02, 2002-03 and 2005-06 respectively. Relying upon the decision of the Full Bench of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT -vs- Moni Kumar Subba [333 ITR 38], the Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai Bench has in the appellant's own case held that the notional interest worked out on the interest free deposit was not in accordance with the provisions of section 23(1) (a) of the Income-tax Act. Further, the Hon'ble ITAT in the said order (supra) has determined ALV at Rs.28,000/- p.m. in respect of A. Yr. 2005-06, as ag…

Suketu Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 17(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4153/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4153/Mum/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Shri Suketu Shah Ito-17(3)(4), बनाम/ 401/402, Tulsiani Chambers, Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Free Press Journal Marg, Mumbai Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Afjps 7645 R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Anant Pai ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. N. Hemalatha

For Appellant: Shri Anant PaiFor Respondent: Ms. N. Hemalatha

Section 22Section 23(1)(a)

…osit collected and refundable interest free and the monthly compensation shows a total mismatch or does not reflect the prevailing rate or the attempt is to deflate or inflate the rent by such methods, then, as held by the Delhi High Court in Moni Kumar Subba 333 ITR 38 (Del)(FB), the AO is not prevented from carrying out the necessary investigation and enquiry. He must have cogent and satisfactory material in his possession and which will indicate that the parties have concealed the real position. He must not make a guess work or act on conjectures and surmises. There must be definite and positive material to in…

ITO 1(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Sudhir Omprakash Bahl, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 455/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Ito-1(2)(2) Sudhir Omprakash Room No. 527, 5Th Floor, Vs. Bahl, 41-B, Jolly Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Maker Apartment-I, Mumbai-400020 Parade, Mumbai-400005 Pan No. Aampb8549F Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. V. Justin, Dr Assessee By : Mr. M. Subramaniyam, Ar Date Of Hearing : 13/11/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/12/2017

For Appellant: Mr. M. Subramaniyam, ARFor Respondent: Mr. V. Justin, DR

Section 143(3)Section 23(1)(a)

…d by the Assessing Officer (AO) was not in accordance with section 23(1)(a) of the Act. Sudhir Omprakash 2 3. Before us, the Ld. DR submits that the Ld. CIT(A) was not right in applying the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Moni Kumar Subha 333 ITR 38 (Del), even though the facts brought out on record suggests extraneous reasons for deflated rent which is in conformity with observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Corporation of Calcutta v. Smt. Padma Debi AIR 1962 SC 151. The Ld. DR relies on the order of the AO. 4. Per contra the Ld. counsel of the assessee relies on the order…

DCIT, Cir-6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S India City Properties Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 1185/KOL/2015[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2017AY 2011-2012

Section 23

…urther find that this particular issue has been adjudicated upon by various Courts including the jurisdictional Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs Satya Co. Ltd. (75 Taxman 193) and Full Bench of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Moni Kumar Subba (333 ITR 38) wherein the notional interest assessed by the AO on security deposits received from tenants was held to be unjustified and deleted. Respectfully following the binding decision of the Calcutta High Court as well as the Delhi High Court, I direct the AO to delete the addition of Rs. 1,62,76,521/- on account of notional interest on security deposits…

DCIT, Cir-6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S India City Properties Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 1184/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2017AY 2010-2011

Section 23

…urther find that this particular issue has been adjudicated upon by various Courts including the jurisdictional Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs Satya Co. Ltd. (75 Taxman 193) and Full Bench of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Moni Kumar Subba (333 ITR 38) wherein the notional interest assessed by the AO on security deposits received from tenants was held to be unjustified and deleted. Respectfully following the binding decision of the Calcutta High Court as well as the Delhi High Court, I direct the AO to delete the addition of Rs. 1,62,76,521/- on account of notional interest on security deposits…

DCIT, Cir-6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S India City Properties Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 1183/KOL/2015[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2017AY 2009-2010

Section 23

…urther find that this particular issue has been adjudicated upon by various Courts including the jurisdictional Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs Satya Co. Ltd. (75 Taxman 193) and Full Bench of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Moni Kumar Subba (333 ITR 38) wherein the notional interest assessed by the AO on security deposits received from tenants was held to be unjustified and deleted. Respectfully following the binding decision of the Calcutta High Court as well as the Delhi High Court, I direct the AO to delete the addition of Rs. 1,62,76,521/- on account of notional interest on security deposits…

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

…terest free deposit should also be included while determining the market value of the property which, in our opinion, is not correct; firstly, for the reason that the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Moni Kumar Subba reported in [2011] 333 ITR 38 (Delhi) Full Bench, categorically held that notional interest on interest free security deposit cannot be taken as determinative factor to arrive 5 I.T.A. No.2967/DEL/2013 at the fair rent/letable value; and secondly, once this issue has been examined by the Assessing Officer, then without ascribing any failure on the part of the assessee, the A…

Ashok Kumar Gupta, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4478/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuin Ita No. 4478/Del/2014 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ashok Kumar Gupta, Vs. Ito C-51, Phase-1, Ashok Ward 15(3), Vihar, Delhi New Delhi (Applicant) (Respondent) (Pan: Aehpg1092B)

For Appellant: Smt. Rano Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 23(1)(a)Section 23(4)Section 24Section 69C

…ining the fair market rent, then AO can take municipal ratable value of lease flats/shops for the purpose of determining the ALV. This principle has been upheld by the Full Bench of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of ACIT vs. Moni Kumar Subba reported in 333 ITR 38. Thus, the ld. Assessing Officer is directed to compute the ALV of the vacant flats/shops as per municipal ratable value in terms of ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court with this direction the appeal treated as partly allowed. 7. In the ground nos. 6 and 7, the assessee has challenged the addition of Rs. 3,28,870/- on account of marri…

Asst CIT 16(3), Mumbai vs. Muktaben G. Kakadia, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by Revenue for AY 2009-10 is dismissed and the appeal for AY 2010-11 is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 333/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 24Section 253Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 274r

…osit collected and refundable interest free and the monthly compensation shows a total mismatch or does not reflect the prevailing rate or the attempt is to deflate or inflate the rent by such methods, then, as held by the Delhi High Court in Moni Kumar Subba 333 ITR 38 (Del)(FB), the AO is not prevented from carrying out the necessary investigation and enquiry. He must have cogent and satisfactory material in his possession and which will indicate that the parties have concealed the real position. He must not make a guess work or act on conjectures and surmises. There must be definite and positive material to in…

Asst CIT 16(3), Mumbai vs. Muktaben G. Kakadia, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by Revenue for AY 2009-10 is dismissed and the appeal for AY 2010-11 is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 332/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 24Section 253Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 274r

…osit collected and refundable interest free and the monthly compensation shows a total mismatch or does not reflect the prevailing rate or the attempt is to deflate or inflate the rent by such methods, then, as held by the Delhi High Court in Moni Kumar Subba 333 ITR 38 (Del)(FB), the AO is not prevented from carrying out the necessary investigation and enquiry. He must have cogent and satisfactory material in his possession and which will indicate that the parties have concealed the real position. He must not make a guess work or act on conjectures and surmises. There must be definite and positive material to in…

ITO WD 1 (2)(2), Mumbai vs. Sudheer Omprakash Bahl, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2319/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm Income Tax Officer Wd Sudheer Omprakash Bahl 1(2)(2) 41-B Jolly Maker Apartment R. No. 527, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Vs. 1 Cuffe Parade Bhavan, M.K. Rd, Mumbai-400 005 Mumbai-400 020 Pan No-Aampb8549F Appellant Respondent .. Revenue By .. Shri Rakesh Ranjan, Dr Assessee By .. Shri M Subramaniam, Ar Date Of Hearing .. 05-06-2017 Date Of Pronouncement .. 09-06-2017 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

Section 143(3)Section 23(1)(a)

…d against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has held that the ratio of the Full Bench decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Moni Kumar Subba and which is reported in (2011) 333 ITR 38 (Delhi) does not permit the revenue to reject the Page 2 of 7 Sudheer Omprakash Bahl A.Y:12-13 amount determined as rent or license fees by the assesse on mere doubt or suspicion. There has to be cogent and satisfactory material to indicate that the rent -or fees determined by the parties are not indicative of the fair or market rent. The Annual…

CIT v. Moni Kumar Subba

What is CIT v. Moni Kumar Subba authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Moni Kumar Subba

Indokem Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT Cir 6, Mumbai

Indokem Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT Cr 6, Mumbai

Indokem Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT Cr 6, Mumbai

Indokem Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT Cr 6, Mumbai

Indokem Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT Cr 6, Mumbai

Indokem Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT Cir 6, Mumbai

Vidya Education Investments Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ACIT - 1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Cyrus Investments Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Cyrus Investments Ltd.), Mumbai

ITO WD 1 (2)(2), Mumbai vs. Sudheer Omprakash Bahl, Mumbai

Suketu Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 17(3)(4), Mumbai

ITO 1(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Sudhir Omprakash Bahl, Mumbai

DCIT, Cir-6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S India City Properties Ltd., Kolkata

DCIT, Cir-6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S India City Properties Ltd., Kolkata

DCIT, Cir-6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S India City Properties Ltd., Kolkata

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Psb Industries India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Ashok Kumar Gupta, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

Asst CIT 16(3), Mumbai vs. Muktaben G. Kakadia, Mumbai

Asst CIT 16(3), Mumbai vs. Muktaben G. Kakadia, Mumbai

ITO WD 1 (2)(2), Mumbai vs. Sudheer Omprakash Bahl, Mumbai