Delhi in CIT v. Ansal Housing Finance and Leasing Ltd.

354 ITR 186High Court2013#12715 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2024.

Judgments citing Delhi in CIT v. Ansal Housing Finance and Leasing Ltd.

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. VENUS INFRASTRUCTURE & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 38/AHD/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 37 & 38/Ahd/2021 धििाधरणणवध/Asstt. Years: 2008-09 & 2017-18 D.C.I.T, M/S Venus Infrastructure & Central Circle-1(1), Vs. Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad 1101 Venus Amadeus, Jodhpur Cross Road, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Aahcs6254J (Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadaw Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate With Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar & Shri Vijay Govani A.Rs सुिणाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/02/2024 घोवणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 14/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Two Appeal Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad, Of Even Dated 20/01/2021 Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under S. 147 R.W.S. 143(3) & 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (Here- In-After Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2017-18. First, We Take Up Ita No. 38/Ahd/2021, An Appeal By The Revenue For Ay 2017-18

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadaw
Section 80Section 80I

…he head „ income from house property", has been differently answered by /he Hon"ble High Court of Gvjarat in CIT Vs. Neha Builders Pvl. Ltd. (2008) 296 ITR 661 (Guj) and the Hon "ble High Court of Delhi in CIT Vs. Ansal Housing Finance and Leasing Ltd. (2013) 354 ITR 186 (Del). We are of the considered view that in the backdrop of the aforesaid conflicting views of the aforesaid non- jurisdictional High Courts, the view in favour of the assessee as had been arrived at by the Hon "ble High Court of Gujarat is to be preferred. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon"ble Supreme Court in the case…

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. VENUS INFRASTRUCTURE & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 37/AHD/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 37 & 38/Ahd/2021 धििाधरणणवध/Asstt. Years: 2008-09 & 2017-18 D.C.I.T, M/S Venus Infrastructure & Central Circle-1(1), Vs. Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad 1101 Venus Amadeus, Jodhpur Cross Road, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Aahcs6254J (Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadaw Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate With Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar & Shri Vijay Govani A.Rs सुिणाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/02/2024 घोवणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 14/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Two Appeal Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad, Of Even Dated 20/01/2021 Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under S. 147 R.W.S. 143(3) & 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (Here- In-After Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2017-18. First, We Take Up Ita No. 38/Ahd/2021, An Appeal By The Revenue For Ay 2017-18

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadaw
Section 80Section 80I

…he head „ income from house property", has been differently answered by /he Hon"ble High Court of Gvjarat in CIT Vs. Neha Builders Pvl. Ltd. (2008) 296 ITR 661 (Guj) and the Hon "ble High Court of Delhi in CIT Vs. Ansal Housing Finance and Leasing Ltd. (2013) 354 ITR 186 (Del). We are of the considered view that in the backdrop of the aforesaid conflicting views of the aforesaid non- jurisdictional High Courts, the view in favour of the assessee as had been arrived at by the Hon "ble High Court of Gujarat is to be preferred. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon"ble Supreme Court in the case…

M/S DOSTI CORPORATION (PINNACLE),MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 17 (1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 735/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Sept 2021AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)Section 23

…the head „income from house property‟, has been differently answered by the Hon‟ble High Court of Gujarat in CIT Vs. Neha Builders Pvt. Ltd. (2008) 296 ITR 661 (Guj) and the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in CIT Vs. Ansal Housing Finance and Leasing Ltd. (2013) 354 ITR 186 (Del). We are of the considered view that in the backdrop of the aforesaid conflicting views of the aforesaid nonjurisdictional High Courts, the view in favour of the assessee as had been arrived at by the Hon‟ble High Court of Gujarat is to be preferred. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of…

RAHEJA UNIVERSAL(PVT) LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT C.C.-4(2),, MUMBAI

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

ITA 4173/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Mayur KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay J. Sethi (Sr. AR)
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 23(5)Section 24B

…the head „income from house property‟, has been differently answered by the Hon‟ble High Court of Gujarat in CIT Vs. Neha Builders Pvt. Ltd. (2008) 296 ITR 661 (Guj) and the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in CIT Vs. Ansal Housing Finance and Leasing Ltd. (2013) 354 ITR 186 (Del). We are of the considered view that in the backdrop of the aforesaid conflicting views of the aforesaid non-jurisdictional High Courts, the view in favour of the assessee as had been arrived at by the Hon‟ble High Court of Gujarat is to be preferred. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of…

M/S.EMGEE HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 6(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4551/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Blem/S. Emgee Homes Pvt. Ltd., V. Acit – 6(3)(1) C/O. 301 & 304, A Wing, 3Rd Floor Aayakar Bhavan Naman Midtown, Senapati Bapat Marg Mumbai Elphinstone, Mumbai – 400 013 Pan: Aabce2749Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P. Daniel Department By : Shri Maurya Pratap

For Appellant: Shri P. DanielFor Respondent: Shri Maurya Pratap
Section 23

…the head „income from house property‟, has been differently answered by the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in CIT Vs. Neha Builders Pvt. Ltd. (2008) 296 ITR 661 (Guj) and the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in CIT Vs. Ansal Housing Finance and Leasing Ltd. (2013) 354 ITR 186 (Del). We are of the considered view that in the backdrop of the aforesaid conflicting views of the aforesaid nonjurisdictional High Courts, the view in favour of the assessee as had been arrived at by the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat is to be preferred. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of…

SAROVAR DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-4(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2625/AHD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2625/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-2015 Sarovar Developers Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax Officer, 13A,Pushpkunj Society, Vs. Ward-4(1)(1), Kankaria,Maninagar, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad.

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Vora, A.R
Section 145(3)Section 23Section 24

…the head „income from house property‟, has been differently answered by the Hon‟ble High Court of Gujarat in CIT Vs. Neha Builders Pvt. Ltd. (2008) 296 ITR 661 (Guj) and the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in CIT Vs. Ansal Housing Finance and Leasing Ltd. (2013) 354 ITR 186 (Del). We are of the considered view that in the backdrop of the aforesaid conflicting views of the aforesaid non- jurisdictional High Courts, the view in favour of the assessee as had been arrived at by the Hon‟ble High Court of Gujarat is to be preferred. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case o…

CHAMBER CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 6902/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri JP Bairagra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abirama Karthikeyan, DR
Section 143(3)Section 22

…2016; dated 22.02.2018], and after deliberating on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in CIT Vs. Neha Builders Pvt. Ltd. (2008) 296 ITR 661 (Guj) and that of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Ansal Housing Finance & Leasing Company Ltd. (2013) 354 ITR 186 (Del), has held that the assessing officer was not correct in bringing to tax the notional annual lettable value of the unsold flats which were held by the assessee as stock-in-trade. On a similar footing a similar view had also been taken by the ITAT, Mumbai Bench “G”, Mumbai in the case of Progressive Homes, Mumbai Vs. ACIT-Circle 4(4), Mumbai…

CHAMBER CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 6901/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri JP Bairagra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abirama Karthikeyan, DR
Section 143(3)Section 22

…2016; dated 22.02.2018], and after deliberating on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in CIT Vs. Neha Builders Pvt. Ltd. (2008) 296 ITR 661 (Guj) and that of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Ansal Housing Finance & Leasing Company Ltd. (2013) 354 ITR 186 (Del), has held that the assessing officer was not correct in bringing to tax the notional annual lettable value of the unsold flats which were held by the assessee as stock-in-trade. On a similar footing a similar view had also been taken by the ITAT, Mumbai Bench “G”, Mumbai in the case of Progressive Homes, Mumbai Vs. ACIT-Circle 4(4), Mumbai…

Delhi in CIT v. Ansal Housing Finance and Leasing Ltd. (354 ITR 186) — Cited in 8 Judgments | BharatTax