Commissioner of Income Tax v. J. K. Investors (Bombay) Ltd.

248 ITR 723High Court2001#2441 most cited

What is Commissioner of Income Tax v. J. K. Investors (Bombay) Ltd. authority for?

The annual value of house property under Section 23 of the Income Tax Act cannot include notional interest on interest-free security deposits received from tenants. Notional interest cannot be added to an interest-free security deposit to arrive at the annual value for income from house property.

47

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,421 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. J. K. Investors (Bombay) Ltd. · 248 ITR 723 · Section 22 Income Tax Act · Section 23 Income Tax Act · annual value · income from house property · notional interest · interest-free security deposit · fair rent calculation · Bombay High Court

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

Issues it is cited on

section 23(1)(a)section 23(1)interest on interestannual letting valueannual valuesection 22section 23previous yearappeal before the tribunalbusinesssection 143interest

Judgments citing Commissioner of Income Tax v. J. K. Investors (Bombay) Ltd.

Padam Chand Gupta, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 35(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 7418/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Padam Chand Gupta, Vs. Assistant Commissioner 1-C Court Road Civil Lines Of Income Tax, Income Tax Delhi 110054 Circle 35(1) New Delhi Pan No. Aanpg5120C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 23

…owner in respect thereof is in excess of the sum referred to in clause (a), the amount so received or receivable;" It will be relevant to reproduce below the observations of jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. J.K. Investors (Bombay) Ltd. (2001) 248 ITR 723 (Bom) relating to the above provision of Income-tax: "In this matter, we are required to consider the scheme of taxation of income from house property. Section 22 says that the measure of income from house property is its annual value. The annual value is to be decided in accordance with section 23. Sub-section (1) of section 23. by virtue of th…

Jewel Housing, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 892/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P BoraFor Respondent: Shri Pawan Bharati
Section 143(3)Section 23(4)

…1. DCIT vs. Shri Ashok Beharay vide ITA No.827/PN/2011, order dated 03.07.2012 and Dr. Shrikant Kelkar vide ITA No.561/PN/01 2. Parkpaper Industries (P) Ltd vs. ITO 25 SOT 406 3. CIT vs. Akshay Textiles Trading 304 ITR 401 4. CIT vs. J K Investor (Bombay) Ltd 248 ITR 723 5. M V Sonawala vs. CIT 177 ITR 246 7. The Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the order of CIT(A). 8. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A) and the paper book filed by both the sides. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. The only que…

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

…to the interest free security deposit to arrive at the annual value of the property while determining income under the head "income from House Property". Similar view was also expressed by the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs J.K. Investors (Born.) Ltd 248 ITR 723 and by the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Asian Hotels Limited 168 Taxman 59. The CIT(A) found that the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in its decision in the case of CIT Vs M.K. Subba 333 ITR 38(del) held that in arriving at the fair rent there is no provision in law for inclusion of any notional interest on interest free deposit rece…

Gurpreet Singh Dhillon, Amritsar vs. ACIT, Circle Int. Tax. 1(2)(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

ITA 2673/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

Section 23Section 24Section 251(2)

…I.T.A. No. 2673/Del/2022 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH “D” : DELHI ] BEFORE SHRI G. S. PANNU, PRESIDENT A N D SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No. 2673/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Years: 2018-19 Gurpreet Singh Dhillon, ACIT, Kothi No. 2, बनाम Dera Baba Jaimal Singh, Vs. Circle Int. Tax. 1(2)(2) Beas, Amritsar, Punjab – 143 204. New Delhi. PAN No. AFQPD5302R अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ" / Respondent Ms. Vandna Sharda, िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee by : C.A.; राज"वक"ओरसे / Department by Shri Sanjan Kumar; : Sr. D. R. सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date of hearing : 4/07/2023 25/09/…

ACIT-3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Gemtex Merchants Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1270/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1270/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit-3(1)(1) बिधम/ M/S. Gentex Merchants Room No. 607, 6Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. 81, Maker Chambers-Iii, Road, Mumbai-400020. 223, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcg1491M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala Revenue By: Dr. Kishor Dhule (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 20/07/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax/Nfac, Delhi Dated 20.02.2023 For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The First Ground Of Appeal Of The Revenue Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Restricting The Annual Value Of The Property Let Out At Rs.1,20,00,000/- As Against Rs.14,14,94,120/- Determined By The Ao. 3. Brief Facts Are That The Assessee Company Had Filed Its Return Of Income For Ay. 2012-13 On 29.09.2012 Declaring A Total Loss Of (Rs.2,14,60,919/-). The Ao Noted That The Assessee Has Declared Income From Two Heads Of Income Viz. Income From House Property & Income From Business & Profession. & That The Assessee Company Owned A Residential Property At 22, Aurangazeb Road, New Delhi. & That The Assessee Has Let Out The Said Property On Rent Of Rs.1,20,00,000/- For The Year. Further The Assessee Also Charged A Fixed

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule (DR)

…to the interest free security deposit to arrive at the annual value of the property while determining income under the head “income from House Property”. Similar view was also expressed by the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs J.K. Investors (Born.) Ltd 248 ITR 723 and by the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Asian Hotels Limited 168 Taxman 59. The CIT(A) found that the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in its decision in the case of CIT Vs M.K. Subba 333 ITR 38(del) held that in arriving at the fair rent there is no provision in law for inclusion of any notional interest on interest free deposit rece…

ACIT-3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Gentex Merchants Private Lmited, Mumbai

ITA 853/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2023AY 2014-2015
For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule
Section 143(3)

…he Appellant by the following the judgment of the Full Bench of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Moni Kumar Subbah: 333 ITR 38 Del (FB) and the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. J.K. Investors (Bom.) Ltd. : [2001] 248 ITR 723. The Tribunal has concluded that as per provisions of Section 23(1)(b) of the Act higher of the municipal valuation or the actual rent received has to be adopted as the annual value. We note that the CIT(A) has adopted the actual rental value of INR 1.44 Crore as annual rental value as the same was much higher than the municipal value, and has de…

Yash Vardhan Arya, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer, (International Taxation) Ward-1(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 203/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Smt.Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 23Section 23(1)(a)Section 271(1)(c)

…ollowing cases the courts have held that fair rental value can be determined u/s 23(1}(a) of the IT Act. CIT Vs G Ramesan [Kerala] [241 ITR 426] CIT Vs Johny Joseph [Kerala] [241 ITR 423] ataraj Vs DCIT [Madras] [266 ITR 277J J K. Investors Bombay Ltd [Bombay 248 ITR 723] MAE Pacs [Bombay] [230 ITR 60] Considering the above, I am of the view that the annual lettable value of the property needs to be computed where the property is claimed vacant throughout the year and where the assessee had not admitted any rental Incomes. The taxable house property Income from the property is worked out at Rs.23,54.940/- after a…

Mll Logistics Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT - 3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 164/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu (Hon’Ble) & Shri Saktijit Dey (Hon’Ble)

Section 115JSection 133(6)

…afe for the Court to go beyond the letter of the law and try to read into the provision more than what is already provided for. We may also record that even the Bombay High Court in the case Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. J. K. Investors (Bombay) Ltd.,[(2001) 248 ITR 723 (Bom.)] categorically rejected the formula of, addition of notional interest while determining the "fair rent". It is, thus, manifest that various Courts have held a consistent view that notional interest cannot form part of actual rent. Hence, there is no justification to take a different view that what has been stated in Asian Hotels Limited [2…

Synchem Chemicals (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 10(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2753/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2021AY 2010-11
Section 10Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 45

…tional interest on interest free deposits can be considered for the purpose of computing annual value. We find that the assessee placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs J K Investors (Bombay ) Ltd reported in 248 ITR 723 (Bom) wherein it was pointed out that computation of property income was concerned with annual value or actual rent and not notional interest on interest free deposits. The assessee also placed reliance on the Full Bench decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Moni Kumar Subba reported in 333 ITR M/s. Lupin Investments Pvt. Ltd…

Transmarine Corporation, Mumbai vs. ACIT - 17 (3), Mumbai

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

ITA 7001/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Oct 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaletransmarine Corporation Acit – 17(3) बनाम/ 15, Dubash House, J.N. Mumbai. Vs. Heredia Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aafft6088G .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwarlFor Respondent: Shri Amit Pratap Singh, CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 23Section 23(1)(b)Section 24

…owner in respect thereof is in excess of the sum referred to in clause (a), the amount so received or receivable;" It will be relevant to reproduce below the observations of jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. J.K. Investors (Bombay) Ltd. (2001) 248 ITR 723 (Bom) relating to the above provision of Income-tax : "In this matter, we are required to consider the scheme of taxation of income from house property. Section 22 says ITA No.7001 /Mum/2018 M/s. Transmarine Corporation, Mumbai. that the measure of income from house property is its annual value. The annual value is to be decided in accordance…

ACIT 23(3), Mumbai vs. Shailaja S. Hemdev, Mumbai

ITA 2926/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Smt. Shailaja S. Hemdev 11/12Th Income Tax-23(3) Floor, Blair Room No.104, 1St Floor Apartments, Dr. Amberjkar Matru Mandir, Road, Bandra (W) Mumbai Mumbai – 400 050 Pan/Gir No.Abbph2668D (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 23Section 23(1)(a)Section 23(1)(b)Section 24Section 54

…re, such notional interest could be taken into consideration for the above computation is correct or not. 4. Placing reliance upon the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. J.K. Investors (Bombay) Ltd. reported in [2001] 248 ITR 723, which has been stated to be confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Mr.Mistry urged that the appeals do not raise any substantial question of law. 5. On the other hand, Mr.Abhay Ahuja, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue submits that the Tribunal has referred to both the sections 23(1)(a) and 23(1)(b) of the I.T. Act. It also relied upon…

Indokem Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT Cir 6, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 3287/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Jacinta Zimik Vashai
Section 147Section 22Section 23Section 23(1)Section 263

…Aayakr ApIlaIya AiQakrNa “I” nyaayapIz maMuba[- mao. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री महावीर स िंह, न्याययक दस्य एविं श्री राजेश कुमार लेखा दस्य के मक्ष । BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA No. 3282/Mum/2014 (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2001-02) Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA No. 3283/Mum/2014 (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2002-03) Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA No. 3284/Mum/2014 (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2003-04) Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA No. 3285/Mum/2014 (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2004-05) Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA No. 3286/Mum/2…

Indokem Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT Cr 6, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 3286/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Jacinta Zimik Vashai
Section 147Section 22Section 23Section 23(1)Section 263

…Aayakr ApIlaIya AiQakrNa “I” nyaayapIz maMuba[- mao. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री महावीर स िंह, न्याययक दस्य एविं श्री राजेश कुमार लेखा दस्य के मक्ष । BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA No. 3282/Mum/2014 (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2001-02) Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA No. 3283/Mum/2014 (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2002-03) Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA No. 3284/Mum/2014 (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2003-04) Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA No. 3285/Mum/2014 (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2004-05) Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA No. 3286/Mum/2…

Indokem Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT Cr 6, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 3285/MUM/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Jacinta Zimik Vashai
Section 147Section 22Section 23Section 23(1)Section 263

…Aayakr ApIlaIya AiQakrNa “I” nyaayapIz maMuba[- mao. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री महावीर स िंह, न्याययक दस्य एविं श्री राजेश कुमार लेखा दस्य के मक्ष । BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA No. 3282/Mum/2014 (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2001-02) Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA No. 3283/Mum/2014 (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2002-03) Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA No. 3284/Mum/2014 (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2003-04) Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA No. 3285/Mum/2014 (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2004-05) Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA No. 3286/Mum/2…

Indokem Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT Cr 6, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 3284/MUM/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Jacinta Zimik Vashai
Section 147Section 22Section 23Section 23(1)Section 263

…Aayakr ApIlaIya AiQakrNa “I” nyaayapIz maMuba[- mao. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री महावीर स िंह, न्याययक दस्य एविं श्री राजेश कुमार लेखा दस्य के मक्ष । BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA No. 3282/Mum/2014 (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2001-02) Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA No. 3283/Mum/2014 (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2002-03) Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA No. 3284/Mum/2014 (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2003-04) Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA No. 3285/Mum/2014 (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2004-05) Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA No. 3286/Mum/2…

Indokem Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT Cr 6, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 3283/MUM/2014[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Jacinta Zimik Vashai
Section 147Section 22Section 23Section 23(1)Section 263

…Aayakr ApIlaIya AiQakrNa “I” nyaayapIz maMuba[- mao. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री महावीर स िंह, न्याययक दस्य एविं श्री राजेश कुमार लेखा दस्य के मक्ष । BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA No. 3282/Mum/2014 (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2001-02) Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA No. 3283/Mum/2014 (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2002-03) Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA No. 3284/Mum/2014 (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2003-04) Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA No. 3285/Mum/2014 (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2004-05) Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA No. 3286/Mum/2…

Indokem Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT Cir 6, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 3282/MUM/2014[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2018AY 2001-02

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Jacinta Zimik Vashai
Section 147Section 22Section 23Section 23(1)Section 263

…Aayakr ApIlaIya AiQakrNa “I” nyaayapIz maMuba[- mao. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री महावीर स िंह, न्याययक दस्य एविं श्री राजेश कुमार लेखा दस्य के मक्ष । BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA No. 3282/Mum/2014 (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2001-02) Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA No. 3283/Mum/2014 (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2002-03) Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA No. 3284/Mum/2014 (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2003-04) Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA No. 3285/Mum/2014 (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2004-05) Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA No. 3286/Mum/2…

Balaji Singh Teeka, Mumbai vs. ITO (It) 2(1), Mumbai

The appeal is allowed as above

ITA 4775/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Mr. Balaji Singh Teeka, Income Tax Officer Floor, Sai Commercial Annexe (International Taxation)-2(1), बिधम/ Bks Devshi Marg, Govandi (E) Gr. Floor, Scindia House, Vs. Mumbai- 400088 Ballard Pier, N.M. Road, Mumbai-400038 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Ahnpb3075G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Pathur, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…P a g e | 1 ITA No. 4775/Mum/2015 A.Y 2010-11 Mr. Balaji Singh Teeka Vs. Income Tax Officer (IT)-2(1) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S.PANNU, AM AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM Mr. Balaji Singh Teeka, Income Tax Officer Floor, Sai Commercial Annexe (International Taxation)-2(1), बिधम/ BKS Devshi Marg, Govandi (E) Gr. Floor, Scindia House, Vs. Mumbai- 400088 Ballard Pier, N.M. Road, Mumbai-400038 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ PAN No. AHNPB3075G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant by : Shri Nikhil Pathur, A.R प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent by : S…

S.P. Corporation, Mumbai vs. A.C.I.T. RG. 11(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6298/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Perci PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin
Section 143(3)

…for the Court to go beyond the letter of the law and try to read into the provision more than what is already provided for. We may also record that even the Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. J. K. Investors (Bombay) Ltd., [(2001) 248 ITR 723 (Bom.)] categorically rejected the formula of addition of notional interest while determining the “fair rent”. It is, thus, manifest that various Courts have held a consistent view that notional interest cannot form part of actual rent. Hence, there is no justification to take a different view that what has been stated in Asian Hotels Limited [20…

S.P. Corporation, Mumbai vs. A.C.I.T.RG.11(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2626/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri Perci PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin
Section 143(3)

…for the Court to go beyond the letter of the law and try to read into the provision more than what is already provided for. We may also record that even the Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. J. K. Investors (Bombay) Ltd., [(2001) 248 ITR 723 (Bom.)] categorically rejected the formula of addition of notional interest while determining the “fair rent”. It is, thus, manifest that various Courts have held a consistent view that notional interest cannot form part of actual rent. Hence, there is no justification to take a different view that what has been stated in Asian Hotels Limited [20…