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

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

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ ‘बी’, म ुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE 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) .. AND 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,…

Vijay Baldev Mehra, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 26(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Vijay Baldev Mehra, Addl. Cit-26(1), C/O- M/S C.M. 6Th Floor, K.G. Mittal बनाम/ Gabhawala & Company, Aayurvedic Hospital Bldg, Vs. 42, Nanik Niwas, 30 Dr. Charni Road, Mumbai-400002 D.D. Sathe Marg, Girgaum Mumbai-400004 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Afypm7833C

…which refers to standard or fair rent, should be taken as the “annual value” for the purposes of charged u/s 22 of the Act (CIT vs Parasmal Choradia (1998) 145 CTR (Mad.) 468)). The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs J.K. Investors Bombay Ltd. (2001) 248 ITR 723 held that in 8 Shri Vijay Baldev Mehra section 23(1)(b), the word “receivable” the notes payment of actual rent to the assessee. It was further held, if in a given year, a portion of the actual rent is in arrears, it would still come within section 23(1)(b) and it is for this reason that the word “receivable” must be read in the context of the w…

Vishwanath Acharaya, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 11(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7976/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08)

…statute it would be unsafe 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 ofCIT v. J.K. Investors (Bombay) Ltd. [2001] 248 ITR 723 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 CIT v. Asian Hotels Limited [20…

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

…of the tenants had taken a property on rent,that the assessee had looked after its commercial interest by taking high interest free deposit,that notional interest cannot be the basis of determining ALV .He referred to the case of J K Investors (Bombay) Ltd. (248 ITR 723 ) of 3 1662/11-Goodvalue P. 06-07 the Hon’ble Bombay High Court.Departmental Representative(DR)contended that the AO had not taken the notional interest as ALV,that he had made inquiries about prevalent rent of nearby areas,that he had decided the issue by considering various factors including interest free deposits,that the rent was miserably l…

DCIT Cen Cir 23, Mumbai vs. Rajendra Barot, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Lalit Kumar

…by the assessee. While coming to the above conclusion, CIT (A) relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Baker Technical Services (P) Ltd 126 TTJ 455 (Mum) (TM); the judgment of the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. J.K. Investors (248 ITR 723) and others. Aggrieved with the said decision of the CIT (A), Revenue is in appeal for the AYs 2002-03 to 2008-09. 7. During the proceedings before us, Ld Counsel for the assessee narrated the brief facts of the case. At the outset, Ld Counsel for the assessee demonstrated that all appeals under consideration have a legal issue and the same is su…