CIT vs. Kishanalal & Sons(Udyog) P. Ltd., 260 ITR 481(Cal) (vi). CIT v. Sardar Exhibitors P. Ltd.

261 ITR 632High Court2003#24072 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2018.

Judgments citing CIT vs. Kishanalal & Sons(Udyog) P. Ltd., 260 ITR 481(Cal) (vi). CIT v. Sardar Exhibitors P. Ltd.

Dr. Manju Dang, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 6421/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 2(22)(e)

…i). Sheila Koushish vs. CIT, 131 ITR 435 (SC) (iv). Amolak Ram Khosla vs. CIT, 131 ITR 589(SC) (v). CIT vs. Kishanalal & Sons(Udyog) P. Ltd., 260 ITR 481(Cal) (vi). CIT v. Sardar Exhibitors P. Ltd., 203 Taxmann 640 (vii). CIT vs. Vinay Bharat Ram & Sons (HUF) 261 ITR 632 (Del) (viii). Dewan Daulat Rai Kapoor vs. N. Delhi Municipal Committee, 122 ITR 700 (SC) (ix). CIT vs. L. Bansidhar & Sons, 209 ITR 465 (Del) Several other decisions have been referred to in the written synopsis by the assessee. 3.1 Regarding the second issue, it was submitted that the payment of commission was made through cheque on sale of pr…

D.C.I.T., Circle-2, Gwalior vs. M/S Prem Motors Pvt Ltd., Gwalior

The appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 327/AGR/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra16 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Section 2(22)(e)Section 22Section 40A(2)(b)

…ect from the 1976 amendment, after which the actual rent would be relevant only if it is higher than ITA 322 & 327/Agra/2015 27 the standard rent. Once again the decision of this Court in CIT vs. Vinay Bharat Ram & Sons (HUF) (2003) 179 CTR (Del) 31 : (2003) 261 ITR 632 (Del) is topical. The Department had assailed the following remand order of the CIT(A)- "The AO is directed to redetermine the annual value of the property in accordance with my findings, he will limit the same to the higher of the following (a) the municipal valuation, (b) the fair rent determinable under the Rent Control Act, and (c) the actual…

Asst CIT 16(2), Mumbai vs. Govindbhai L. Kakadia, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6663/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jun 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2011-12 Acit Cit 16(2), Govindbhai L. Kakadia, 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir, 1001 Prasad Chambers, बनाम/ Tardeo Rd. Opera House, Vs. Mumbai-400007 Tata Rd. No.2 Mumbai-400004 (Revenue) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aftpk4028A Revenue By Shri A. Ramachandran (Dr) Respondent By None (Ar)

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

…Singh v. MCD [1985] 152 ITR 388 (SC) 5. CIT v. Mayur Recreational & Development Ltd.(AIT- 2008-189 ITA-SB); 6. CIT v. Raghubir Salan Charitable Trust 183 ITR 297 - (Delhi); 7. L.Bansidhar & Sons HUF 201 ITR 655 (Delhi) 8. CIT v. Vinay Bharat Ram & Sons (HUF) 261 ITR 632 (Delhi) 2.4.5 In view of the above, and considering the 'without prejudice' pleadings made by the Ld. AR as in the appellate proceedings for A.Y.2010-11 in his own case, I 5 Govindbhai L. Kakadia am of the considered opinion that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and other Courts are crystal clear that the value which could be adopted b…