CIT v. Poddar Bros (P) Limited

240 ITR 925High Court1999#9594 most cited
11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 1961Section 22 of the Income Tax ActSection 23 of the Income Tax ActSection 23(1)(a) of the Income Tax ActSection 23(1)(b) of the Income Tax ActSection 25B of the Income Tax Act

Judgments citing CIT v. Poddar Bros (P) Limited

ACIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. GENTEX MERCHANTS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

Appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 196/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, CAFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Parwani, Sr. DR

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE MS PADMAVATHY S, AM & SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, JM I.T.A. No. 196/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) ACIT – 3(1)(1) Gentex Merchants Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 607, 6th Floor, 81, Maker Chambers-III, 223, Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400020. PAN : AABCG1491M Appellant) : Respondent) Appellant/Assessee by : Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, CA Revenue/Respondent by : Shri Mahesh Parwani, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 05.06.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 11.06.2024 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, AM: This appeal by the Revenue is against the order…

PRINCIPAL COMMSSIONER OF INCOME TAX KOL 2 KOLKATA vs. INDIAN BANK

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the

ITAT/44/2018HC Calcutta10 Feb 2023

Bench: :

Section 14ASection 23Section 260A

…the CIT(A) that the valuation of the municipal corporation has to be accepted lays down the correct legal principle. In this regard, we place reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Poddar Bros (P) Ltd., (1999) 240 ITR 925 (Cal.). Thus, the substantial question of law no.(c) is decided against the revenue. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the substantial questions of law are answered against the revenue. The stay application being IA No.: GA/2/2018 (Old No. GA/537/2018) is also dismissed. (T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.)…

WENDY LESLIE PEREIRA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-21(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7369/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Mr. Mandar Vaidya, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Uday Bhaskar Jakke, DR
Section 143(3)Section 23Section 23(1)(a)

…e ALV on the basis of Municipal Valuation, unless the same was lower than the actual rent received. The assessee also referred before the AO the decision in the case of M/s Sheila Kaushish v. CIT (1981) 131 ITR 435 (SC) and CIT v. Poddar Bros (P.) Ltd. (1999) 240 ITR 925, 926, 927 (Cal). Thus the assessee submitted that the income from house property has been correctly calculated on the basis of annual ratable value as determined by the Municipal Authority and the actual rent being higher should be adopted for determining the income from house property. However, the AO was not convinced with the above explanatio…

SATYAPAL JAIKUMAR JAIN,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, for

ITA 6752/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh (Jm) & Shri S Rifaur Raheman (A.M.) Shri Satyapal J Jain Vs The Dcit, Cent.Cir 6(4), Mumbai 82, Maker Chambers-Iii Nariman Point, Mumbai Pan : Aabpj1888Q Appellant Respondednt

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

…eceived is higher. The definition of annual rent is not different from what is contemplated under the municipal law. The assessee also submitted that in the case of Mrs. Sheila Kashish vs CIT [1981] 131 it 435 (SC) and in CIT vs Poddar Bros (P) Ltd [1999] 240 ITR 925 (Cal), the High Court upheld 3 ITA 6752/Mum/2018 the Tribunal’s decision to limit the annual value to the rateable value fixed under the municipal law. The above explanation of the assessee was not acceptable to the AO. The AO observed as per the provisions of section 23(1)(a), the annual value f the property shall be deemed to be the “the su…

DCIT, CIR-6(1), KOLKATA, 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

…urt in following cases held that for determining the annual letting value of the property under section 23(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 the annual letting value taken by the Calcutta Municipal Corporation had to be adopted. - CIT vs Poddar Bros (P) Limited (240 ITR 925) -` CIT vs Prabhabati Bhansali (141 ITR 419) - CIT vs Satya Co. Ltd. (173 Taxman 193) Applying the principle laid down in the above judgments of jurisdictional Calcutta High Court which I am bound to follow and taking into account the facts of the present case, I am in agreement with the appellant that the annual letting value of the property let…

DCIT, CIR-6(1), KOLKATA, 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

…urt in following cases held that for determining the annual letting value of the property under section 23(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 the annual letting value taken by the Calcutta Municipal Corporation had to be adopted. - CIT vs Poddar Bros (P) Limited (240 ITR 925) -` CIT vs Prabhabati Bhansali (141 ITR 419) - CIT vs Satya Co. Ltd. (173 Taxman 193) Applying the principle laid down in the above judgments of jurisdictional Calcutta High Court which I am bound to follow and taking into account the facts of the present case, I am in agreement with the appellant that the annual letting value of the property let…

DCIT, CIR-6(1), KOLKATA, 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

…urt in following cases held that for determining the annual letting value of the property under section 23(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 the annual letting value taken by the Calcutta Municipal Corporation had to be adopted. - CIT vs Poddar Bros (P) Limited (240 ITR 925) -` CIT vs Prabhabati Bhansali (141 ITR 419) - CIT vs Satya Co. Ltd. (173 Taxman 193) Applying the principle laid down in the above judgments of jurisdictional Calcutta High Court which I am bound to follow and taking into account the facts of the present case, I am in agreement with the appellant that the annual letting value of the property let…

RANJIT H. BHAVNANI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3698/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita Nos.8413 To 8415/Mum/2011 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2003-04, 2004-05 & 2008-09) Smt. Mala Ranjit Bhavnani, 3, Vs. Ito-12(2)(2), Mumbai-20 Buckley Court, 5, Wodhouse Road, Mumbai-400001 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aafpb 1108 B (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.3698/Mum/2012 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2007-008) Ranjit H. Bhavnani, 3, Buckley Vs. Dcit-3(3) Mumbai-20 Court, 5, Wodhouse Road, Mumbai-400001 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aacpb 8459 L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Nitesh Joshi याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Peeyush Sonkar सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 09/12/2015 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 31/03/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A), Mumbai, For The Assessment Years 2003-04, 2004-05, 2007-08 & 2008-09, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.143(3) Of The I.T.Act. 2. Common Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee In All The Years Under Consideration, Therefore, All The Appeals Were Heard & Are Now

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Peeyush Sonkar
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 23

…nd Smt. Smitaben N. Ambani, 323 ITR 104. Reliance was also placed on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Shapoorji & Co.(Rajkot) Pvt. Ltd., order dated 3-7-2006 and decision of Hon’ble Kolkata High Court in the case of Podar Bros (P) Ltd. 240 ITR 925. In view of the above judicial pronouncements it was contended by ld. AR that the AO should have taken the actual rent received by the assessee or the municipal ratable value for determining ALV of housing. Strong 7 ITA Nos.8413-8415/11 & 3698/12 reliance was also placed on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Tip Top Typogra…

MALA RANJIT BHAVNANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8415/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita Nos.8413 To 8415/Mum/2011 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2003-04, 2004-05 & 2008-09) Smt. Mala Ranjit Bhavnani, 3, Vs. Ito-12(2)(2), Mumbai-20 Buckley Court, 5, Wodhouse Road, Mumbai-400001 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aafpb 1108 B (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.3698/Mum/2012 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2007-008) Ranjit H. Bhavnani, 3, Buckley Vs. Dcit-3(3) Mumbai-20 Court, 5, Wodhouse Road, Mumbai-400001 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aacpb 8459 L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Nitesh Joshi याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Peeyush Sonkar सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 09/12/2015 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 31/03/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A), Mumbai, For The Assessment Years 2003-04, 2004-05, 2007-08 & 2008-09, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.143(3) Of The I.T.Act. 2. Common Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee In All The Years Under Consideration, Therefore, All The Appeals Were Heard & Are Now

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Peeyush Sonkar
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 23

…nd Smt. Smitaben N. Ambani, 323 ITR 104. Reliance was also placed on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Shapoorji & Co.(Rajkot) Pvt. Ltd., order dated 3-7-2006 and decision of Hon’ble Kolkata High Court in the case of Podar Bros (P) Ltd. 240 ITR 925. In view of the above judicial pronouncements it was contended by ld. AR that the AO should have taken the actual rent received by the assessee or the municipal ratable value for determining ALV of housing. Strong 7 ITA Nos.8413-8415/11 & 3698/12 reliance was also placed on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Tip Top Typogra…

MALA RANJIT BHAVNANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8414/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita Nos.8413 To 8415/Mum/2011 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2003-04, 2004-05 & 2008-09) Smt. Mala Ranjit Bhavnani, 3, Vs. Ito-12(2)(2), Mumbai-20 Buckley Court, 5, Wodhouse Road, Mumbai-400001 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aafpb 1108 B (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.3698/Mum/2012 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2007-008) Ranjit H. Bhavnani, 3, Buckley Vs. Dcit-3(3) Mumbai-20 Court, 5, Wodhouse Road, Mumbai-400001 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aacpb 8459 L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Nitesh Joshi याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Peeyush Sonkar सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 09/12/2015 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 31/03/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A), Mumbai, For The Assessment Years 2003-04, 2004-05, 2007-08 & 2008-09, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.143(3) Of The I.T.Act. 2. Common Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee In All The Years Under Consideration, Therefore, All The Appeals Were Heard & Are Now

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Peeyush Sonkar
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 23

…nd Smt. Smitaben N. Ambani, 323 ITR 104. Reliance was also placed on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Shapoorji & Co.(Rajkot) Pvt. Ltd., order dated 3-7-2006 and decision of Hon’ble Kolkata High Court in the case of Podar Bros (P) Ltd. 240 ITR 925. In view of the above judicial pronouncements it was contended by ld. AR that the AO should have taken the actual rent received by the assessee or the municipal ratable value for determining ALV of housing. Strong 7 ITA Nos.8413-8415/11 & 3698/12 reliance was also placed on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Tip Top Typogra…

MALA RANJIT BHAVNANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8413/MUM/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita Nos.8413 To 8415/Mum/2011 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2003-04, 2004-05 & 2008-09) Smt. Mala Ranjit Bhavnani, 3, Vs. Ito-12(2)(2), Mumbai-20 Buckley Court, 5, Wodhouse Road, Mumbai-400001 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aafpb 1108 B (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.3698/Mum/2012 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2007-008) Ranjit H. Bhavnani, 3, Buckley Vs. Dcit-3(3) Mumbai-20 Court, 5, Wodhouse Road, Mumbai-400001 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aacpb 8459 L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Nitesh Joshi याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Peeyush Sonkar सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 09/12/2015 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 31/03/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A), Mumbai, For The Assessment Years 2003-04, 2004-05, 2007-08 & 2008-09, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.143(3) Of The I.T.Act. 2. Common Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee In All The Years Under Consideration, Therefore, All The Appeals Were Heard & Are Now

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Peeyush Sonkar
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 23

…nd Smt. Smitaben N. Ambani, 323 ITR 104. Reliance was also placed on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Shapoorji & Co.(Rajkot) Pvt. Ltd., order dated 3-7-2006 and decision of Hon’ble Kolkata High Court in the case of Podar Bros (P) Ltd. 240 ITR 925. In view of the above judicial pronouncements it was contended by ld. AR that the AO should have taken the actual rent received by the assessee or the municipal ratable value for determining ALV of housing. Strong 7 ITA Nos.8413-8415/11 & 3698/12 reliance was also placed on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Tip Top Typogra…

CIT v. Poddar Bros (P) Limited (240 ITR 925) — Cited in 11 Judgments | BharatTax