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

ITO 3(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Bombay Sealink Builders P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose and Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 3118/MUM/2015[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2017AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ashwani Taneja

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal
Section 23(1)(a)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण " जी ” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ASHWANI TANEJA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.3117/MUM/2015 : (A.Y : 2006-07) ITA NO.3118/MUM/2015 : (A.Y : 2002-03) ITO 3(1)(2) Vs. M/s Bombay Sealink Builders R.No.666/6668-A Pvt. Ltd 6th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan 121, Maker Chambers VI M.K.Road 2nd Floor, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 021 PAN : AAACB2701Q ITA NO.3596/MUM/2015 : (A.Y : 2002-03) M/s Bombay Sealink Builders Vs. ITO 3(1)(2) Pvt. Ltd R.No.666/6668-A 121, Maker Chambers VI 6th Floor, Aay…

Mrs. Rashmi Dhariwal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result ground No. 11 and 12 of the appeal of the assessee are allowed accordingly

ITA 2900/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishirashmi Dhariwal, Vs. Acit, Aashray Farms, Sub Po, Circle-23(1), Sawan Public School, Bhatti New Delhi Mines, Asola Village, New Delhi Pan:Aappd9702P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sr. FR Meena, Sr. DR
Section 23

…d the rival contentions and also per used the orders of the Ld. assessing officer as well as the 1st appellate authority. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT versus Moni Kumar Suba [2011] 10 taxmann.com 195 (Delhi)/[2011] 199 Taxman 301 (Delhi)/[2011] 333 ITR 38 (Delhi)/[2011] 240 CTR 97 (Delhi) has dealt with identical situation and has held as under:- "1. The assessee had filed the return for the assessment year 2001- 02 declaring an income of Rs. 2,52,510. While framing the assessment under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟), the Assessing Officer (AO) found tha…

DCIT 29(1), Mumbai vs. Dinesh M Shah, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2562/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Cn Prasad & Shri Ashwani Taneja: (A.Y : 2010-11) Dcit 29(1) Vs. Dinesh M Shah R.No.108, 1St Floor, C-10 Bldg., Prop. M/S Mehula Pratyakshakar Bhavan Enterprises Bandra Kurla Complex 104, Arnath Sravodya Nagar Bandra (E) Jain Mandir, Mulund (W) Mumbai – 400 051 Mumbai – 400 080 Pan : Aagps5149G (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Devendra Jain प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से Revenue By : Mrs Beena Santosh सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/02/2017 घोषणा की तारीख Date Of Pronouncement : 22/02/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per C.N.Prasad (J.M.) : This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals)-40, Mumbai Dated 30.03.2015 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. The Revenue In Its Appeal Has Raised The Following Grounds : “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Disallowance Of Salary Of Rs.10,11,674/- Without Appreciating The Fact That The Assessee Has Not Proved As To How The Excess Salary Expenditure Laid For Planning Of Expansion Of The Business & As To How The Same Did

For Appellant: Shri Devendra JainFor Respondent: Mrs Beena Santosh
Section 22

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “जी ” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI CN PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ASHWANI TANEJA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : (A.Y : 2010-11) DCIT 29(1) Vs. Dinesh M Shah R.No.108, 1st Floor, C-10 Bldg., Prop. M/s Mehula Pratyakshakar Bhavan Enterprises Bandra Kurla Complex 104, Arnath Sravodya Nagar Bandra (E) Jain Mandir, Mulund (W) Mumbai – 400 051 Mumbai – 400 080 PAN : AAGPS5149G (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Assessee by : Shri Devendra Jain प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से Revenue by : Mrs Beena Santosh सुनवाई की त…

M/S. Mission Viejo Agro Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 4236/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 4236/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 M/S Mission Verdes Estate Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, 48, Friends Colony, Central Circle-23, New Delhi-110065 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm1160C Assessee By : Sh. Sashi Tulsiyan, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. F. R. Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.09.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2016 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 10.02.2015 Of Ld. Cit(A)-30, New Delhi. 2. Following Grounds Have Been Raised In This Appeal: “1. That The Cit (Appeals) Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Impugned Assessment Order Passed Under Sections 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Which Is Without Jurisdiction, Illegal & Bad In Law Since The Prerequisite Conditions For Initiating Proceedings Under Section 147 Of The Act Were Not Fulfilled In The Present Case. 2. That The Cit (Appeals) Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Alleged Fair Rental Value At Rs.11,77,528/- & Thereby Making An Addition Of Rs.11,77,528/- Under The Head Income From House Property. 3. That The Cit(Appeals) Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Addition Of Rs.7,00,000/- Received From M/S 2 Mission Viejo Estate Pvt. Ltd. Golden Techno Build Pvt. Ltd. As Unexplained Cash Credits U/S 68 Of The Act. 4. That The Cit(Appeals) Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Aforesaid Addition Of Rs.7 Lacs Without Appreciating That The Appellant Had Discharged Its Onus In Terms Of Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961.” 3. Ground No. 1 Is Not Pressed, Therefore, The Same Is Dismissed As Not Pressed.

For Appellant: Sh. Sashi Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. F. R. Meena, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ed in the absence of standard rent and actual rent.) 11 Mission Viejo Estate Pvt. Ltd. We rely on following judgements:- ACIT VS. MAYUR RECREATION AND DEVELOPMENT LTD. 301 ITR (AT) 324 (SB) (DEL.) The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case CIT VS. MON1 KUMAR SUBBA 333 ITR 38 (DEL) (FB) TYPOGRAPHY IN ITA NO. 1213 OF 2011 DTD. 08.08.2014 has followed the decisions of Delhi High Conn staled above. PARKPAPER INDUSTRIES (P) LTD. (2008) 25 SOT 406 (MUM.) SATYA COMPANY LTD. 140 CTR (CAL.) 569 FOUR, that no basis had been provided for calculating the annual value / rental income of the said property. It is purely on the basis…

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

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

ITA 2107/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishimoni Kumar Subba, Acit, Subba Farm House, Central Circle-4, Vs. Ara Building, 3Rd Floor, 118, Village Sultanpur, Mehrauli, Gurgaon Road, Delhi-30 Jhandewalan Etx., New Delhi Pan:Aasps1484J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Satyajeet Goel, CAFor Respondent: Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 2

…Page 1 of 5 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. H.S.SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Moni Kumar Subba, ACIT, Subba Farm House, Central Circle-4, Vs. ARA Building, 3rd Floor, 118, Village Sultanpur, Mehrauli, Gurgaon Road, Delhi-30 Jhandewalan Etx., New Delhi PAN:AASPS1484J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Sh. Satyajeet Goel, CA Revenue by: Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 23/06/2016 Date of pronouncement 29/06/2016 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. This appeal is filed by assessee against the order of Commissioner of…

DCIT Cir 7(1), Mumbai vs. Percept Finserve P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4698/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Ramlal Negi (Jm)

Section 14ASection 23Section 23(1)Section 23(1)(a)

…essing Officer estimated interest on the security deposits @ 11.75% and added the same to the annual letting value. Learned CIT(A) however deleted the addition by following decision rendered by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Moni Kumar Subba (333 ITR 38) and also decision rendered by Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal by following decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of J.K. Investors (248 ITR 723). 5. During the course of hearing learned Departmental Representative placed reliance on the decision rendered by Hon'ble P&H High Court in the case of CIT Vs. K. Streetlite Electric Corporation…

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1591/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Apr 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawalbefore Shri G.D. Agrawal & And Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawalg.D. Agrawal & And Ms. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamblems. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri P. Dam Kanunjna, Senior DRFor Respondent: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CA
Section 23(1)(a)

…o not mandate this. In a taxing statute it would be unsafe for the court to go beyond the letter of the law and try to read into the provision more than what is already provided for.” 4. The decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court is reported in [2011] 333 ITR 38 (Del) titled as CIT Vs. Moni Kumar Subba. Since the issue is squarely covered by the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in favour of the assessee, respectfully following the above decision, we find no infirmity in the order of learned CIT(A). The same is sustained and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 5. In the result, the appeal of the R…

Nalin Jagdishkumar Gupta, Mumbai vs. JCIT (OSD) Cen Cir 39, Mumbai

ITA 5793/MUM/2012[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Sanjay Arora

Section 23Section 260

…he municipal rateable value of the properties in question. The rateable value, one may add, is not binding on the Assessing Officer, and it all depends on the facts of the case, including if the municipal value is extant (refer: CIT vs Moni Kumar Subba (2001) 333 ITR 38 (Del.)(FB)). On the same reasoning, the ld. Assessing Officer is directed to consider the municipal rateable value of the property and decide as per the provision of the law. Thus, this ground of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 4. Next ground pertains to deleting the addition of Rs.30,66,547/- made u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act holding…

JCIT (OSD) CC 39, Mumbai vs. Nalin J Gupta, Mumbai

ITA 5419/MUM/2012[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Sanjay Arora

Section 23Section 260

…he municipal rateable value of the properties in question. The rateable value, one may add, is not binding on the Assessing Officer, and it all depends on the facts of the case, including if the municipal value is extant (refer: CIT vs Moni Kumar Subba (2001) 333 ITR 38 (Del.)(FB)). On the same reasoning, the ld. Assessing Officer is directed to consider the municipal rateable value of the property and decide as per the provision of the law. Thus, this ground of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 4. Next ground pertains to deleting the addition of Rs.30,66,547/- made u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act holding…

JCIT (OSD) CC 39, Mumbai vs. Nalin J Gupta, Mumbai

ITA 5413/MUM/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Sanjay Arora

Section 23Section 260

…he municipal rateable value of the properties in question. The rateable value, one may add, is not binding on the Assessing Officer, and it all depends on the facts of the case, including if the municipal value is extant (refer: CIT vs Moni Kumar Subba (2001) 333 ITR 38 (Del.)(FB)). On the same reasoning, the ld. Assessing Officer is directed to consider the municipal rateable value of the property and decide as per the provision of the law. Thus, this ground of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 4. Next ground pertains to deleting the addition of Rs.30,66,547/- made u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act holding…

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)

…lready tenanted at the beginning of the AY.,cannot be expected to be let from year to year at any figure higher than the rent which is being produced actually by the property in question. Hon’ble Delhi High Court(full bench)has,in the case of Moni kumar Subba(333 ITR 38)has laid down following principles: (i) The annual letting value would be the sum at which the property may be reasonably 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 of the bounds of reasonableness. (iii)Actual rent…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Fizz Drinks Ltd

The appeals stand disposed of as directed above

ITA - 412 / 2005HC Delhi23 Nov 2011
For Appellant: Ms Suruchi Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr Prakash Kumar, Advocate
Section 23Section 260

…5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and we find that the question that has been formulated for our decision stands answered by the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Moni Kumar Subba (2011): 333 ITR 38 (Delhi) (FB). In paragraph 4 of the said decision it is held:- “In a case like this, the standard rent which could be arrived at applying the formula laid down in the Delhi Rent Control Act is not applicable, as property in question is not covered by the Delhi Rent Control Act.” 6. It is, therefore, clear that th…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Fizz Drinks Ltd

The appeals stand disposed of as directed above

ITA - 638 / 2005HC Delhi23 Nov 2011
For Appellant: Ms Suruchi Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr Prakash Kumar, Advocate
Section 23Section 260

…5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and we find that the question that has been formulated for our decision stands answered by the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Moni Kumar Subba (2011): 333 ITR 38 (Delhi) (FB). In paragraph 4 of the said decision it is held:- “In a case like this, the standard rent which could be arrived at applying the formula laid down in the Delhi Rent Control Act is not applicable, as property in question is not covered by the Delhi Rent Control Act.” 6. It is, therefore, clear that th…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Fizz Drinks Ltd

The appeals stand disposed of as directed above

ITA/638/2005HC Delhi23 Nov 2011
For Appellant: Ms Suruchi Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr Prakash Kumar, Advocate
Section 23Section 260

…5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and we find that the question that has been formulated for our decision stands answered by the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Moni Kumar Subba (2011): 333 ITR 38 (Delhi) (FB). In paragraph 4 of the said decision it is held:- “In a case like this, the standard rent which could be arrived at applying the formula laid down in the Delhi Rent Control Act is not applicable, as property in question is not covered by the Delhi Rent Control Act.” 6. It is, therefore, clear that th…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Fizz Drinks Ltd

The appeals stand disposed of as directed above

ITA/412/2005HC Delhi23 Nov 2011
For Appellant: Ms Suruchi Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr Prakash Kumar, Advocate
Section 23Section 260

…5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and we find that the question that has been formulated for our decision stands answered by the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Moni Kumar Subba (2011): 333 ITR 38 (Delhi) (FB). In paragraph 4 of the said decision it is held:- “In a case like this, the standard rent which could be arrived at applying the formula laid down in the Delhi Rent Control Act is not applicable, as property in question is not covered by the Delhi Rent Control Act.” 6. It is, therefore, clear that th…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Sardar Exhibitors P. Ltd

ITA/670/2005HC Delhi15 Nov 2011
Section 22Section 23(1)Section 23(1)(c)Section 260A

…ir tenant, which was a transaction at arm‟s length and not a transaction between sister concerns or related persons. 11. Section 23 of the Act has been interpreted by a Full Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Moni Kumar Subba (2011) 333 ITR 38 (Del) (FB). In the said decision it has been observed: 2011:DHC:5736-DB ITA NOs.670/2005, 672/2005 & 944/2005 Page 8 of 10 “16. Since the provisions of fixation of annual rent under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act are pari materia of Section 23 of the Act, we are inclined to accept the aforesaid view of the Calcutta High Court in…

Psb Industries India Pvt Ltd

Appeal is dismissed

ITA - 792 / 2011HC Delhi11 Jul 2011
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 269USection 27(1)(c)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ke this, no penalty was sustained: (1) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Zoom Communications Pvt. Ltd. [327 ITR 510]. (2) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. [322 ITR 158]. (3) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M.K. Subba [333 ITR 38]. 2011:DHC:3428-DB ITA No.792 of 2011 Page 8 of 14 (4) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Suresh Chandra Mittal [251 ITR 9]. (5) K.P. Madhusudhanan Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [251 ITR 99]. 10. Mr. Deepak Chopra, learned counsel for the Revenue, countered the aforesaid submission. He relied upon the r…