CIT v. Smt. Prabhabati Bansali

S.P Corporation, Mumbai vs. ACIT RG 11(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the Assessment Years

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

…as virtually to place her in the same position as before to establish her legal right as a tenant. 13. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee heavily placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT v. Smt. Prabhabati Bansali [141 ITR 419] submitted that rateable value fixed by the Bombay Municipal Corporation should form the basis for computation of the annual value and for the purpose of Section 23 it provides the safest guide for this purpose. Referring to the said decision Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Hon’ble High Court held that the language of Section 154…

ACIT - 1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Cyrus Investments Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Cyrus Investments Ltd.), Mumbai

In the result , appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6414/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Assistant Commissioner Of बिाम/ M/S Cyrus Investments Income-Tax-1(1)(1) Private Limited 579, Aayakar Bhawan Esplanade House, Fort V. M K Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400002 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaacc2880P (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

…flat no. 3 which was taken over by the assessee in AY 2009-10 from Shapoorji & Co.(Rajkot) Limited. The learned counsel for the assessee also relied upon the decision(s) of Hon‟ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT v. Prabhabati Bansali reported in (1983)141 ITR 419(Cal.), Hon‟ble Bombay High Court decision in the case of M.V Sonavala v. CIT (1989)177 ITR 246(Bom.) , Hon‟ble Delhi High Court decision in the case of CIT v. R. Dalmia(deceased-through LR) (1987)163 ITR 525(Delhi) , decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Dewan Daulat Rai Kapoor v. NDMC (1980) 122 ITR 700(SC) and decision of ITAT, Mumba…

DCIT 2(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Sheba Properties Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 660 To 664/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2012-13) Tata Motors Finance Limited Dy. Cit (Osd), 2(3) 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, (Formerly Known As Sheba Properties बनाम/ Limited) M. K. Marg, Mumbai -400 020 10Th Floor, 106A & B, Maker Chambers Vs. Iii, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaecs 0591 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 699 To 703/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2012-13, 2008-09, 2011-12) Dy. Cit, Circle-2(3)(2), Tata Motors Finance Limited Room No. 552, 5Th Floor, (Formerly Known As Sheba बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Marg, Properties Limited) 3Rd Floor, Nanavati Mahalaya, 18 Mumbai -400 020 Vs. Homi Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaecs 0591 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. R. Vohra & Shri Nikhil Tiwari ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri V. Justin

…teable value should be considered as the value referred to in section 23(1)(a). Relying on the decisions of the Hon'ble Bombay Court in the case of M.V. Sonavala v.CIT (177 ITR 266), the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the cases of CIT v. Prabhabati Bansali (141 ITR 419) and CIT v. Satya Co. Ltd. (25 Taxman 193), the assessee contended that since the rent received by it was more than the municipal ratable value, the former should be taken as the ALV. The Assessing Officer did not agree with the contention of the assessee. Relying on the decision of Hon'ble Patna High Court in the case of Kashiprasad Kataruka…

Sheba Properties Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD) 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 660 To 664/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2012-13) Tata Motors Finance Limited Dy. Cit (Osd), 2(3) 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, (Formerly Known As Sheba Properties बनाम/ Limited) M. K. Marg, Mumbai -400 020 10Th Floor, 106A & B, Maker Chambers Vs. Iii, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaecs 0591 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 699 To 703/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2012-13, 2008-09, 2011-12) Dy. Cit, Circle-2(3)(2), Tata Motors Finance Limited Room No. 552, 5Th Floor, (Formerly Known As Sheba बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Marg, Properties Limited) 3Rd Floor, Nanavati Mahalaya, 18 Mumbai -400 020 Vs. Homi Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaecs 0591 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. R. Vohra & Shri Nikhil Tiwari ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri V. Justin

…teable value should be considered as the value referred to in section 23(1)(a). Relying on the decisions of the Hon'ble Bombay Court in the case of M.V. Sonavala v.CIT (177 ITR 266), the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the cases of CIT v. Prabhabati Bansali (141 ITR 419) and CIT v. Satya Co. Ltd. (25 Taxman 193), the assessee contended that since the rent received by it was more than the municipal ratable value, the former should be taken as the ALV. The Assessing Officer did not agree with the contention of the assessee. Relying on the decision of Hon'ble Patna High Court in the case of Kashiprasad Kataruka…

Anudeep Enterprises P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 3(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G S Pannu & Shri Ravish Soodassessment Year : 2006-07 Anudeep Enterprises P Ltd Ito Ward 3(1)(1), 801, Shanudeep, Mumbai Vs. 10 Altamount Road, Mumbai- 400 026 Pan Aaaca1338G (Appellant) Respondent)

…rities is a good basis to determine the annual letting value for the purpose of section 23 of the Act. In support of the said proposition, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Prabhabati Bansali [1983] 141 ITR 419. The learned representative pointed out that the language of section 154 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1988 is pari materia with section 23(1)(a) of the Act. In support of his arguments, the learned representative also placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Tip Top Typography [2014] 368 I…

ACIT 17(2), Mumbai vs. Jagshi J Chheda, Mumbai

In the result, all of the appeals filed by the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09

…vs Asian Hotels Ltd 323 ITR 490 (Delhi- FB) 1. 2. Trivoli Investments & Trading CO Ltd ITA No 2808/2809/Mum/1996 dated 13.4.2011 3. CIT vs J.K. Investors (Bombay) Ltd 248 ITR 723 (Bom) 4. M. V. Sonavala vs. CIT 177 ITR 246 (Bom.) 5. CIT vs. Prabhabati Bansali 141 ITR 419 (Cal.) 6. Indersons Leathers Pvt Ltd vs AddI CIT 295 ITR 295 (AT- Amritsar) 7. CIT vs. Satya Co. Ltd. 140 CTR 569 (Cal) In the recent Delhi full Bench judgement in the case of CIT vs Asian Hotels Ltd 323 ITR 490 it has been held that there is no scope in law for taxing any notional interest. 5.4 On the basis of the facts of the case and the decis…

Jagshi J. Chheda, Mumbai vs. A.C.I.T. Circle - 17(2), Mumbai

In the result, all of the appeals filed by the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09

…vs Asian Hotels Ltd 323 ITR 490 (Delhi- FB) 1. 2. Trivoli Investments & Trading CO Ltd ITA No 2808/2809/Mum/1996 dated 13.4.2011 3. CIT vs J.K. Investors (Bombay) Ltd 248 ITR 723 (Bom) 4. M. V. Sonavala vs. CIT 177 ITR 246 (Bom.) 5. CIT vs. Prabhabati Bansali 141 ITR 419 (Cal.) 6. Indersons Leathers Pvt Ltd vs AddI CIT 295 ITR 295 (AT- Amritsar) 7. CIT vs. Satya Co. Ltd. 140 CTR 569 (Cal) In the recent Delhi full Bench judgement in the case of CIT vs Asian Hotels Ltd 323 ITR 490 it has been held that there is no scope in law for taxing any notional interest. 5.4 On the basis of the facts of the case and the decis…

Ranjit H. Bhavnani, Mumbai vs. DCIT 3(3), Mumbai

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

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

…gainst the above order of CIT(A) assessee is in further appeal before us. 6. Ld. AR relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Sheila Kaushish, 131 ITR 435, decision of Hon’ble Kolkata High Court in the case of Smt Prabhabati Bansali, 141 ITR 419, decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of M.V.Sonavala, 117 ITR 246 and 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…

Mala Ranjit Bhavnani, Mumbai vs. ITO 12(2)(2), Mumbai

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

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

…gainst the above order of CIT(A) assessee is in further appeal before us. 6. Ld. AR relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Sheila Kaushish, 131 ITR 435, decision of Hon’ble Kolkata High Court in the case of Smt Prabhabati Bansali, 141 ITR 419, decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of M.V.Sonavala, 117 ITR 246 and 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…

Mala Ranjit Bhavnani, Mumbai vs. ITO 12(2)(2), Mumbai

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

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

…gainst the above order of CIT(A) assessee is in further appeal before us. 6. Ld. AR relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Sheila Kaushish, 131 ITR 435, decision of Hon’ble Kolkata High Court in the case of Smt Prabhabati Bansali, 141 ITR 419, decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of M.V.Sonavala, 117 ITR 246 and 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…

Mala Ranjit Bhavnani, Mumbai vs. ITO 12(2)(2), Mumbai

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

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

…gainst the above order of CIT(A) assessee is in further appeal before us. 6. Ld. AR relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Sheila Kaushish, 131 ITR 435, decision of Hon’ble Kolkata High Court in the case of Smt Prabhabati Bansali, 141 ITR 419, decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of M.V.Sonavala, 117 ITR 246 and 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…

Goodvalue Polyplast Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 16(3)(1), Mumbai

…3.24 lacs by Bombay Municipal Corporation, that the assessee had shown ALV of Rs.4.92 lacs, that same was more than rateable value fixed by the municipality, that ALV was assessed after considering all relevant facts.It referred to case of Prabhavati Bansali (141 ITR 419) ; Bhaskar Mitter (73 taxmann 437); and stated that notional interest free deposit was not actual rent received or receivable, that any advantage or perquisite accruing to the assessee could not be treated as rent, that availability of interest free funds enabled the assessee to save on its interest cost and/or employ the funds for earning more,…