CIT v. Rasiklal Balabhai

119 ITR 303High Court1979#9345 most cited
11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 1961Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 131Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

Issues it is cited on

self occupied propertysection 80lsection 23(2)section 2(31)section 23(1)interest on interestannual letting valueannual valuesection 22section 40a(3)share application moneyaddition u/s 68

Judgments citing CIT v. Rasiklal Balabhai

MANOJ SURESH TATOOSKAR,PUNE vs. CIRCLE 1(1) , PUNE

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

ITA 1729/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri R.Y. Balawade
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…h Vasantbhai Golwala Vs. ACIT (supra) is concerned, he submitted that the said decision was recalled by the Tribunal since the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Rasiklal Balabhai reported in (1979) 119 ITR 303 (Guj.) was not followed and the order dated 11.10.2013 was recalled. Further, ld. Counsel for the assessee referred to the decision of Coordinate Bench, Mumbai in the case of Dhadda Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO in ITA No.257/Mum/2015 order dated 16.08.2016 submitted that the Hon’ble Tribunal following the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Jurisdiction…

THE KUMAR FAMILY TRUST,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, DELHI

In the result, appeal for AYs 2013-14 & 2014-15 are unabated and assessments are set aside due to no incriminating material found during the search and the appeals for the said assessment years are...

ITA 2776/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumar, Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 22Section 23(2)

…y to use the properties owned by the Trust for business purposes cannot be viewed adversely or said to be unjustified or illegal. 4.4 Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs Rasiklal Balabhai (119 ITR 303) involving somewhat similar facts & circumstances as involved in the present case. In the decided case, an individual partner had permitted the partnership firm to use the property held by him in his personal name without any rent/charge. The AO however refused to accept that the property was being used by him in business and therefore estimated…

THE KUMAR FAMILY TRUST,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, DELHI

In the result, appeal for AYs 2013-14 & 2014-15 are unabated and assessments are set aside due to no incriminating material found during the search and the appeals for the said assessment years are...

ITA 2775/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumar, Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 22Section 23(2)

…y to use the properties owned by the Trust for business purposes cannot be viewed adversely or said to be unjustified or illegal. 4.4 Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs Rasiklal Balabhai (119 ITR 303) involving somewhat similar facts & circumstances as involved in the present case. In the decided case, an individual partner had permitted the partnership firm to use the property held by him in his personal name without any rent/charge. The AO however refused to accept that the property was being used by him in business and therefore estimated…

THE KUMAR FAMILY TRUST,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal for AYs 2013-14 & 2014-15 are unabated and assessments are set aside due to no incriminating material found during the search and the appeals for the said assessment years are...

ITA 2774/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumar, Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 22Section 23(2)

…y to use the properties owned by the Trust for business purposes cannot be viewed adversely or said to be unjustified or illegal. 4.4 Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs Rasiklal Balabhai (119 ITR 303) involving somewhat similar facts & circumstances as involved in the present case. In the decided case, an individual partner had permitted the partnership firm to use the property held by him in his personal name without any rent/charge. The AO however refused to accept that the property was being used by him in business and therefore estimated…

THE KUMAR FAMILY TRUST,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, DELHI

In the result, appeal for AYs 2013-14 & 2014-15 are unabated and assessments are set aside due to no incriminating material found during the search and the appeals for the said assessment years are...

ITA 2773/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumar, Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 22Section 23(2)

…y to use the properties owned by the Trust for business purposes cannot be viewed adversely or said to be unjustified or illegal. 4.4 Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs Rasiklal Balabhai (119 ITR 303) involving somewhat similar facts & circumstances as involved in the present case. In the decided case, an individual partner had permitted the partnership firm to use the property held by him in his personal name without any rent/charge. The AO however refused to accept that the property was being used by him in business and therefore estimated…

THE KUMAR FAMILY TRUST,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal for AYs 2013-14 & 2014-15 are unabated and assessments are set aside due to no incriminating material found during the search and the appeals for the said assessment years are...

ITA 2772/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumar, Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 22Section 23(2)

…y to use the properties owned by the Trust for business purposes cannot be viewed adversely or said to be unjustified or illegal. 4.4 Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs Rasiklal Balabhai (119 ITR 303) involving somewhat similar facts & circumstances as involved in the present case. In the decided case, an individual partner had permitted the partnership firm to use the property held by him in his personal name without any rent/charge. The AO however refused to accept that the property was being used by him in business and therefore estimated…

THE KUMAR FAMILY TRUST,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTER CIRCLE-4, DELHI

In the result, appeal for AYs 2013-14 & 2014-15 are unabated and assessments are set aside due to no incriminating material found during the search and the appeals for the said assessment years are...

ITA 2771/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumar, Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 22Section 23(2)

…y to use the properties owned by the Trust for business purposes cannot be viewed adversely or said to be unjustified or illegal. 4.4 Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs Rasiklal Balabhai (119 ITR 303) involving somewhat similar facts & circumstances as involved in the present case. In the decided case, an individual partner had permitted the partnership firm to use the property held by him in his personal name without any rent/charge. The AO however refused to accept that the property was being used by him in business and therefore estimated…

THE KUMAR FAMILY TRUST,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal for AYs 2013-14 & 2014-15 are unabated and assessments are set aside due to no incriminating material found during the search and the appeals for the said assessment years are...

ITA 2770/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumar, Judicialmember

For Appellant: Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 22Section 23(2)

…y to use the properties owned by the Trust for business purposes cannot be viewed adversely or said to be unjustified or illegal. 4.4 Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs Rasiklal Balabhai (119 ITR 303) involving somewhat similar facts & circumstances as involved in the present case. In the decided case, an individual partner had permitted the partnership firm to use the property held by him in his personal name without any rent/charge. The AO however refused to accept that the property was being used by him in business and therefore estimated…

SHRI PRAKASHBHAI PRAHLADBHAI GAMI,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3),, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3129/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 Jun 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.3129/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Prakashbhai Prahladbhai Gami, The Income Tax Officer, Gangakrupa Building, Ward-2(3)(3), Surat. B/H. Ramdev Complex, Pune Vs Village, Dist. Surat. [Pan: Adspp 6520 F] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओर से /Assessee By Shri Manish J Shah – Ar राज"वक"ओर से /Revenue By Smt. Anupama Singla – Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 26.04.2021 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 04.06.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Pawan Singh, Judicial Memeber: 1. This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Surat Hereinafter Referred As “Ld.Cit(A)” Dated 07.09.2016 For A.Y. 2013-14. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The C.I.T.(Appeals) Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Action Of Assessing Of Addition Of Rs.4,20,000/- To The Returned Income Of The Appellant Under The Head ‘Income From House Property’ By Estimating Notional Rent Of Rs.6,00,000/- In Respect Of Property Situated At Mumbai Without Appreciating The Facts Of The Properly. 2. The C.I.T(Appeals) Erred In Law & On Facts In Sustaining Adhoc Disallowance Of Cash Expenditure To The Extent Of 10% I.E. Rs.5,07,680/- Out Of Total Expenditure Of Rs.50,76,800/- Without Appreciating The Fact That Net Profit Ratio Of The Appellant Is Improved In The Year Under Consideration. 3. The C.I.T(Appeals) Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs.86,318/- Being Depreciation On Two Motor Cars Held By The Appellant On The Allegation Of Personal Use.”

Section 143(3)Section 23

…urat../ ITA No.3129/AHD/2016 for A.Y. 2013-14 value @ Rs.50,000/- per month. The addition is guise work of the AO which was confirmed by the ld.CIT(A). To support his contention, the ld.AR relied upon the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT Vs Rasiklal Balabhai 119 ITR 303 (Guj). 5. On the other hand, the ld.Sr.DR for the Revenue supported the order of lower authorities. The ld. Sr. DR for the revenue further submits that the assessee has not furnished ay documentary evidences that the house property situated in Mumbai is used for business purpose. The ld. Sr. DR for the revenue further submits that Lokhandwala Est…

RAM B MANSUKHANI,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 17()2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 3154/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Mr. Ram B. Mansukhani Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax C/O Eden Garden Exports, C-33 Circle 17(2) Mumbai Shri Ram Industrial Estate Vs. G.D. Ambedkar Road, Wadala Mumbai-400013 Pan No.Aabpm8345F Appellant .. Respondent .. Shri A. K. Lal, Ar Assessee By Revenue By .. Shri T. A. Khan, Dr .. Date Of Hearing 24-01-2017 Date Of Pronouncement .. 15-02-2017

Section 143(3)Section 22

…m has been held not to be assessed in the hands of the assessee. Similarly, Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. K. M. Jagannathan (1989) 180 ITR 191 (Mad) following the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Rasiklal Balabhai’s case 119 ITR 303 (Guj) has taken a view that where a firm is in carrying on business in a building owned by one of the partners, the owner partner is entitled to exemption under section 22 of the Act in respect to computation of ALV. We find that the CIT(A) has simply relied on the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Prodip Kumar Bothra v. CIT. (supra). As…

DHADDA DIAMONDS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 5(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 257/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singhdhadda Diamonds Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 1208, Panchratna, Opera House, Ward-5(1)(3),Room No.569, Mumbai 400 004 Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai 400 021 Pan:Aaacd 0539 L Appellant .. Respondent .. Appellant By Shri Yogesh Thar Shri Faril Bhatt, Ars .. Respondent By Shri Durga Dutt, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing .. 16-08-2016 Date Of Pronouncement 16-08-2016 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 22

…and also carrying on business from the same premises owned by the Assessee Company, there is no need to estimate notional rent. For this argument he took me through the case law of the Hon‟ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs Rasiklal Balabhai (1979) 119 ITR 303 (Guj.), wherein the decision of the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Shantikumar Narottam Morarji Vs CIT (1955) 27 ITR 69 (Bom) was considered and the same was answered as under:- 3 “7. Broadly, two points would arise for answering the question referred to us, namely, (i) is the assessee carrying on business? and, (ii) is he occupying th…

CIT v. Rasiklal Balabhai (119 ITR 303) — Cited in 11 Judgments | BharatTax