CIT v. P. Mariappa Gounder

147 ITR 676High Court1984#9401 most cited

What is CIT v. P. Mariappa Gounder authority for?

Compensation received for eviction can be treated as arrears of rent and taxed under the head 'income from house property'. Mesne profits are a species of taxable income.

11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Also referred to as

CIT v. P. Mariappa Gounder · 147 ITR 676 · compensation · arrears of rent · income from house property · mesne profits · taxable income · eviction notice · s.25B · s.25AA

Judgments citing CIT v. P. Mariappa Gounder

ACIT 25(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Amrut Enterprises, Mumbai

Appeal of the Assessee is allowed and revenue appeal is dismissed

ITA 1215/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.1215/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Acit 25(2) Mumbai. Amrut Enterprises. Room No. 220, 2Nd Flr, 203, Avon Arcade, Dasrathlal बिधम/ Kautilya Bhavan Bkc Road, Vile Parle(W), Vs. Bandra(E), Mumbai- Mumbai- 400056 400051 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No Aaofa3252E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.1017 & 1018/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2015-16) Amrut Enterprises. Jcit 25(2), Mumbai. Room 203, Avon Arcade, No. 502, 5Th Flr, Pratyakshar बिधम/ Dasrathlal Road, Vile Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra(E), Parle(W), Mumbai-400051 Vs. Mumbai- 400056 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No Aaofa3252E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. S Khandelwal & Shri Nilkanth Khandelwal प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Manoj Sonha, Sr.Ar. सुनवाईकीतारीख/ 04.10.2022 : Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / 02.01.2023 : Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla:

For Appellant: Shri R. S Khandelwal & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Sonha, Sr.AR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 24

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM & SHRI RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.1215/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) ACIT 25(2) Mumbai. Amrut Enterprises. Room No. 220, 2nd FLR, 203, Avon Arcade, Dasrathlal बिधम/ Kautilya Bhavan BKC Road, vile Parle(W), Vs. Bandra(E), Mumbai- Mumbai- 400056 400051 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ PAN No AAOFA3252E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.1017 & 1018/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2015-16) Amrut Enterprises. JCIT 25(2), Mumbai. Room 203, Avon Arcade, No.…

Amrut Enterprises, Mumbai vs. JCIT 25(2), Mumbai

Appeal of the Assessee is allowed and revenue appeal is dismissed

ITA 1018/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.1215/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Acit 25(2) Mumbai. Amrut Enterprises. Room No. 220, 2Nd Flr, 203, Avon Arcade, Dasrathlal बिधम/ Kautilya Bhavan Bkc Road, Vile Parle(W), Vs. Bandra(E), Mumbai- Mumbai- 400056 400051 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No Aaofa3252E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.1017 & 1018/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2015-16) Amrut Enterprises. Jcit 25(2), Mumbai. Room 203, Avon Arcade, No. 502, 5Th Flr, Pratyakshar बिधम/ Dasrathlal Road, Vile Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra(E), Parle(W), Mumbai-400051 Vs. Mumbai- 400056 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No Aaofa3252E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. S Khandelwal & Shri Nilkanth Khandelwal प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Manoj Sonha, Sr.Ar. सुनवाईकीतारीख/ 04.10.2022 : Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / 02.01.2023 : Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla:

For Appellant: Shri R. S Khandelwal & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Sonha, Sr.AR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 24

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM & SHRI RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.1215/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) ACIT 25(2) Mumbai. Amrut Enterprises. Room No. 220, 2nd FLR, 203, Avon Arcade, Dasrathlal बिधम/ Kautilya Bhavan BKC Road, vile Parle(W), Vs. Bandra(E), Mumbai- Mumbai- 400056 400051 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ PAN No AAOFA3252E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.1017 & 1018/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2015-16) Amrut Enterprises. JCIT 25(2), Mumbai. Room 203, Avon Arcade, No.…

Amrut Enterprises, Mumbai vs. JCIT 25(2), Mumbai

Appeal of the Assessee is allowed and revenue appeal is dismissed

ITA 1017/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.1215/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Acit 25(2) Mumbai. Amrut Enterprises. Room No. 220, 2Nd Flr, 203, Avon Arcade, Dasrathlal बिधम/ Kautilya Bhavan Bkc Road, Vile Parle(W), Vs. Bandra(E), Mumbai- Mumbai- 400056 400051 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No Aaofa3252E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.1017 & 1018/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2015-16) Amrut Enterprises. Jcit 25(2), Mumbai. Room 203, Avon Arcade, No. 502, 5Th Flr, Pratyakshar बिधम/ Dasrathlal Road, Vile Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra(E), Parle(W), Mumbai-400051 Vs. Mumbai- 400056 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No Aaofa3252E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. S Khandelwal & Shri Nilkanth Khandelwal प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Manoj Sonha, Sr.Ar. सुनवाईकीतारीख/ 04.10.2022 : Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / 02.01.2023 : Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla:

For Appellant: Shri R. S Khandelwal & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Sonha, Sr.AR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 24

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM & SHRI RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.1215/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) ACIT 25(2) Mumbai. Amrut Enterprises. Room No. 220, 2nd FLR, 203, Avon Arcade, Dasrathlal बिधम/ Kautilya Bhavan BKC Road, vile Parle(W), Vs. Bandra(E), Mumbai- Mumbai- 400056 400051 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ PAN No AAOFA3252E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.1017 & 1018/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2015-16) Amrut Enterprises. JCIT 25(2), Mumbai. Room 203, Avon Arcade, No.…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -2(1), Jabalpur vs. M/S. Mahakaushal Sugar & Power Industries Ltd., Narsinghpur

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 44/JAB/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur29 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Bardia, FCA
Section 143(3)Section 69Section 80

…eal, as opposed to, hypothetical income, that is to be subject to tax, and toward which we may refer to some decisions, viz. UCO Bank v. CIT [1999] 237 ITR 889 (SC); Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 225 ITR 746 (SC), CIT v. P. Mariappa Gounder [1984] 147 ITR 676 (Mad). As such, only the income actually accrued, and which in turn is liable to be reckoned with reference to the purchase cost of power that the sugar division would be required to pay in the normal course of its business, or that for which it is being actually bought by it during the relevant year, also embedded in the arm’s length principle e…

Hajarimal Mishrimal Bafana vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Range

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for AY 2004-05 is dismissed, and that of AY 2005-06 is partly allowed

ITA 176/JAB/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur29 Nov 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Mehrotra Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 254(2)Section 43B

…(SC) J&K industries Ltd. [2007] 13 Scale 204 (SC) CIT v. Kerala Financial Corporation Ltd. [1985] 155 ITR 246 (Ker.) 7 | P a g e ITA Nos. 175 &176/JAB/2016 (A.Yrs. 2004-05 & 2005-06) Hajarimal Mishrimal Bafna v. Addl. CIT P. Mariappa Gounder v. CIT [1984] 147 ITR 676 (Mad.) 7.2 Income, which is by definition only net of expenses, is to be assessed and chargeable to tax only in the right year, law in the matter is well settled and toward which one may refer to decisions the CIT v. British Paints India Ltd. [1991] 188 ITR 44 (SC); CIT vs. Chunilal V. Mehta & Sons P. Ltd. [1971] 82 ITR 54 (SC); Laxmipat Singhani…

Trans Freight Containers Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle- 3 (3)(2), Mumbai

Accordingly, the ground No.1 received by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3262/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm M/S. Trans Freight Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Containers Ltd., Income Tax, 72-73, Nariman Bhavan Circle 3(3)(2), Room Nariman Point No.609, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai – 400 021 M.K.Road Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaact1447P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Nitesh Joshi Revenue By Shri Amit Pratap Singh Date Of Hearing 18/11/2019 Date Of Pronouncement 07/02/2020

Section 143(3)

…ded. He held that the assessee had got the eviction notice issued has no bearing on the nature of receipt. The ld. AO in turn placed reliance on the decision of the decision of Hon‟ble Madras High Court in the case that CIT vs. P. Mariappa Gounder reported in 147 ITR 676. By placing reliance on the aforesaid decision, the ld. AO observed that the amounts received by the assessee in the form of compensation is to be treated as arrears of rent u/s.25B and u/s.25AA which was inserted in the statute of Finance Act 2000 and 2001 respectively w.e.f. 01/04/2000 and 01/04/2001 respectively. Accordingly, he brought to tax…

Addl CIT -- 10(1), Mumbai vs. Agc Network Ltd ( Formerly Known As Avaya Global Connect Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 5157/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

…d, addition made by the Assessing Officer was justified. In support of his contention, the learned Departmental Representative relied upon the following decisions:– Laxmipat Singhania v/s CIT, [1969] 72 ITR 291 (SC); i) ii) CIT v/s P. Mariappa Gounder, [1984]147 ITR 676 (Mad.); & iii) CIT v/s Kerala Financial Corporation, [1985] 155 ITR 246 (Ker.) 41. We have considered rival submissions and perused the material on record. We have also carefully applied our mind to the decisions 43 AGC Network Ltd. (Formerly known as Avaya Global Connect Ltd.) relied upon before us by both the parties. The factual matrix clea…

Seth Properties, Mumbai vs. ITO 12(1)(3), Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2991/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

…s brought to tax. 3.2. On appeal, before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), the submissions of the assessee were considered and the First Appellate Authority discussed the decision from Hon'ble Madas High Court in CIT vs P. Mariappa Gounder (1983) 147 ITR 676 (Mad.), Hon'ble Apex Court in P. Mariappaa Gounder vs CIT (1998) 232 ITR 2(SC), Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs Oberoi Sons (Machined Ltd.(Appeal Nos.166,168,243 and 778 of 2006 dated 31/08/2012 and also the decision in Narang Overseas Pvt. Ltd. of the Tribunal and thereafter held that the amount so the assessee. The assessee is in furthe…

Col. Jaspal Singh, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 6321/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain

For Appellant: Sh. Satyen Sethi, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Bedobina Chaudhari, Sr. DR

…ITA No. 6321/Del./2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH “SMC” NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 6321/Del./2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Col. Jaspal Singh Vs. ITO S/o Late Sh. Surjit Singh, Ward-65(2) 381, Asian Games Village, New Delhi Khel Gaon Marg, New Delhi (Applicant) (Respondent) (PAN: AAXPS2675L) Assessee by: Sh. Satyen Sethi, Adv. Sh. Arta Trana Panda, Adv. Revenue by: Ms. Bedobina Chaudhari, Sr. DR Date of hearing 09/03/2017 Date of pronouncement 15/03/2017 ORDER PER B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. This appeal of the assessee arises…

A.C.I.T Cir - 43, Kolkata vs. Krishna Prasad Bagaria, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2277/KOL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Oct 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

Section 143(1)Section 144Section 148

…11, the operational part of the above order is reproduced as under: "Thus it has been held by the Special Bench after considering the decisions of various High Courts on the issue including the contrary views of Hon Madras High Court in P. Marriappa Gounder (147 ITR 676), that compensation damages received by the assessee for wrongfuI occupation of property was capital receipt and not liable to tax. The High Court Order in the case of the disputed property is very clear and the Hon'ble single Judge while delivering the order has clearly held that the notification issued by Delhi Administration is illegal and bad…

M/S Givo Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 2041/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Shri T. Vasanthan, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 41(1)

…ecided in accordance with the provisions of law. CIT v. Mogul Line Ltd. [1962] 46 ITR 59 (Born.). (vii)Having regard to be characteristics of mesne profit there can be no doubt that they are also a species of taxable income. CIT vs P. Mariappa Gounder (1984) 147 ITR 676 (Mad). (viii)Assessee must prove the source of receipt - It is well established that the onus of proving the source of a sum of money found to have been received by the assessee is on him. If he disputes liability for tax, it is for him to show either that the receipt was not income or that if it was, it was exempt from taxation under the provis…

CIT v. P. Mariappa Gounder (147 ITR 676) — Cited in 11 Judgments | BharatTax