CIT v. Roshanbabu Mohammed Hussein Merchant

275 ITR 231High Court2005#13958 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 148 Section 45 Section 48(1)

Judgments citing CIT v. Roshanbabu Mohammed Hussein Merchant

ITO, WARD-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. ARKA PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 58/HYD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.58/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Income Tax Officer Vs. Arka Properties (P) Ltd Ward 1 (1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aafca7411H (Appellant) (Respondent) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. M. Narmada, Cit(Dr) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate H Srinivasulu, सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 27/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 17/04/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated, 23/11/2023 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, For The A.Y. 2015-16. 2. There Is A Delay Of 1 Day By The Revenue In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal & The Revenue Has Filed An Affidavit Explaining The Cause Of Delay. We Have Heard The Learned Dr As Well As The Learned Ar On The Condonation Of Delay. The Learned Ar Has Not Objected For Condonation Of Delay Of One Day In Filing

For Appellant: Advocate H SrinivasuluFor Respondent: : Smt. M. Narmada, CIT(DR)

Section 148Section 45

…r concern. In support of his contention, the learned DR has relied upon the following decisions: i) VSMR Jagadishchandran vs. CIT (141 CTR 361 (S.C) ii) CIT vs. Attili N Rao (171 CTR 188) (S.C) iii) CIT vs. Roshanbabu Mohd. Hussen Merchant reported in (2005) 275 ITR 231 (Bom.) iv) T.S. Hajee Moosa & Co. vs. ACIT (ITA No.2686/CHNY/ 2018 dated 6/9/2019 v) ITO vs. Late Shri B Kailasam in ITA No.1740/CHNY/ 2013 dated 6/3/2018. Page 3 of 24 ITA No 58 of 2024 ARKA Properties P Ltd 5. The learned DR has also referred to the bank account statements and submitted that the assessee has prepaid this amount to the bank wi…

NEPTUNE POLYMERS PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, Ground Number 5 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 249/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 May 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divatia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. D.R

Section 250

…eld that Amount spent on discharge of mortgage created by assessee after acquiring property, would not be deductible as expense under section 48(1)(i) of the Act. In the case of CIT v. Roshanbabu Mohammed Hussein Merchant [2005] 144 Taxman 720 (Bombay)/[2005] 275 ITR 231 (Bombay), the Bombay High Court held that where a property is acquired by assessee free from encumbrances and, thereafter, an encumbrance by way of mortgaging said property is created by him, then assessee is not entitled to deduction under section 48(i) on account of repayment of mortgage debt or expenditure incurred to remove said encumbrance.…

HIRABAI BHAUSAHEB KATORE,,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

ITA 2844/PUN/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2844/Pun/2016 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Hirabai Bhausaheb Katore, Nimgaon Korhale, Taluka- Rahata, Ahmednagar-423 109. Pan : Csgpk1457F .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri B. B. ManeFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Garg

…that such payments were in the nature of expenditure which has been laid out or expended wholly and exclusively in connection with transfer/sale of the land. 4.3.6 Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Roshanbabu Mohammed Hussein Merchant (275 ITR 231) has held that "when the property was acquired without any encumbrance thereon then the assessee cannot claim any future liability, which arises after the property is acquired." In the case of the appellant also at the time of purchasing the property on 30.07.2012 there was absolutely no encumbrance and alleged claim of liability towards Shri Kis…

PERFECT THREAD MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4964/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu Vice Presedent,(As) Shri D. Karunakar Rao & Shri Amit Shukla, Sh. Pawan Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarperfect Thread Mills Ltd Vs Dcit, 8(2), Mumbai 201, Millenium Plaza Behind Sakinaka Telephone Exchange, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai- 72 Pan: Aaacp6449E Appellant Respondednt

Section 13(2)Section 143(3)Section 255(4)Section 48

…s order:- ST. Cases relied upon Citation No. 1 Sitaladas Tirathdas 41ITR 367 (SC) 2 CIT vs. Attili N Rao 252 ITR 880 (SC) 3 Motilal Chahadamilal Jain vs CIT 190 ITR 1 (SC) 4 CIT vs Mathubhai C Patel 238 ITR 403 (SC) 5 CIT vs Roshanbabu Mohd. Hussein Merc 275 ITR 231 (Bom) 6 CIT vs Sharad Sharma 305 ITR 24 (All) 21 ITA 4964/Mum/2013 7 Raja Bejoy Singh Dudhania 1 ITR 135 (PC) 8 Gopinath Paul and Sons vs DCIT 278 ITR 240 (Cal) 9 Addl. CIT vs Glad Investment vt Ltd. 22 ITD 227 (DEL) 5. Now on these facts, and background the main issue involved here in this appeal are :- Firstly, whether the principal amount…

ACIT CIR 16(1), MUMBAI vs. APURVA MAHESH SHAH, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is allowed

ITA 6959/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Assistant Commissioner Of Income Sh. Apurva Mahesh Shah, 1403, Tax-16(1), Mumbai. Pleasant Palace, Narayan बिधम/ Dabholkar Road, Mumbai-400 Vs. 006. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Abbps3726K (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri. Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Apurva Shah, (

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 48

…Subsequently, the ITAT, Mumbai „C‟ bench in the case of Pradeep Kumar Harlalka Vs. ACIT, Circle 12(3), Mumbai (2012) 143 TTJ 446 (Mum), observing that the judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT vs. Roshan Babu Mohammed Hussein (2005) 275 ITR 231(Bom) had held its earlier judgment in the case Shakuntla Kantilal (supra) as no longer being the good law, thus followed the earlier view taken by the ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Devendra Motilal Kothari (supra) and held that the portfolio management fees was not to be allowed as a deduction under Sec. 48 of the Act while computing the income und…

MATEEN PYARALI DHOLKIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 19(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 6950/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mateen Pyarali Dholkia Dcit-19(3) 90, Gr. Floor, Hill Road, Opp. Vijaya Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Bank Bandra (W), Mumbai-400050. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Abapd1241K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Anil Thakrar, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Saurabh Kumar Rai, Dr Date Of Hearing : 17/05/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/05/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Anil Thakrar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Saurabh Kumar Rai, DR

Section 143(3)Section 48

…the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Smt. Shakuntala Kantilal (1991) 190 ITR 56 (Bom), which had been subsequently held to be not a good law by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT v. Roshanbabu Mohammed Hussein Merchant (2005) 275 ITR 231 (Bom). The later judgment overruling the earlier judgment was not brought to the notice of the Hon’ble Pune Bench. (2) on referring to various clauses of the PMS agreements regarding consideration payable to the Portfolio Manager, it is observed by the Hon’ble Tribunal that it was at half per cent of the net asset value (market value of assets in…

SH. BALJEET SINGH YADAV,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 4209/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishiasstt. Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.C. Dandey, Sr.DR

Section 48

…2009-10 Ambat Echkutty Menon vs CIT (1978) 111 ITR 880 (Ker) wherein the Hon’ble Kerala High Court has held that sum spent to clear encumbrance is not cost of improvement. The AO also relied on the case of CIT Vs Roshanbabu Mohammad Hussein Merchant (2005) 275 ITR 231 (Bom) wherein the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held that expenditure incurred by an assessee to remove an encumbrance created by the assessee himself (on a property which was acquired by him without any encumbrance) shall not be allowed as a deduction under section 48. The AO observed that in this case the property was without any litigation.…