Delhi) (ii). Addl. CIT vs. Mrs. Leela Govindan, 113 ITR 136 (Mad.) (iii). Sheila Koushish v. CIT

131 ITR 589Supreme Court of India1981#18986 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Judgments citing Delhi) (ii). Addl. CIT vs. Mrs. Leela Govindan, 113 ITR 136 (Mad.) (iii). Sheila Koushish v. CIT

DCIT, Circle-1(1)-Exemption, New Delhi vs. Hamdard Laboratories (India), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1311/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri R.M. Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri T James Singson, CIT, DR
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 13(2)Section 13(2)(b)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)Section 250

…nth which was the rent being paid by the company. In view of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases of Dewan 11 Daulat Rai Kapoor v NDMC [1980] 122 ITR 700, Mrs Sheila Kaushish v CIT [1981] 131 ITR 435, and Amolak Ram Khosla v. CIT [1981] 131 ITR 589 since in the instant case the rent payable by the company to the assessee was considered to be more than the standard rent assessable under the Delhi Rent Control Act it was not permissible to say that the rent charged by the assessee was inadequate and was intended to confer any benefit on the settlors or their relatives The assessee was, theref…

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)

…ourt (PB-32- 81). He has also relied on the following decisions : (i). Shyam Udyog P. Ltd. vs. ACIT, 3 SOT 98 (Delhi) (ii). Addl. CIT vs. Mrs. Leela Govindan, 113 ITR 136 (Mad.) (iii). 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…

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)

…hich the property might reasonably be expected to let. There is a plethora of precedents on this issue, all enunciating that 'reasonable’ rent can only be the 'standard’ rent. After analyzing the decisions of the apex Court in Amolak Ram Khosla vs. CIT (1981) 131 ITR 589 (SC), Dewan Daulat Rai Kapoor vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee (1980) 122 ITR 700 (SC) and Sheila Kaushish vs. CIT (1981) 24 CTR (SC) 351 : (1981) 131 ITR 435 (SC), this Court has laid down in CIT vs. Raghubir Saran Charitable Trust (1990) 183 ITR 297 (Del), that the Tribunal was justified in holding that the market rent of the property could no…

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)

…rty u/s.23(1) is the higher of the rent actually received or the Municipal Ratable Value or the standard rent as per the Rent Control Act. Refence in this regard is made to: 1. Sheila Kaushish v. CIT [1981] 131 ITR 435 (SC); 2. Amolak Ram Khosla v. CIT [1981] 131 ITR 589 (SC) 3. Dewan Daulat Ram Kapoor v. NDMC [1980] 122 ITR 700(SC) 4. Dr. Balbir 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) (ii). Addl. CIT vs. Mrs. Leela Govindan, 113 ITR 136 (Mad.) (iii). Sheila Koushish v. CIT (131 ITR 589) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax