Gesco Corporation Ltd. v. ACIT

31 SOT 132Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2009#20536 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Judgments citing Gesco Corporation Ltd. v. ACIT

DCIT- 8(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. PIRAMAL ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2015/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Ronak Doshi/Priyank Gandhi/MsFor Respondent: Shri N. V. Nadkarni, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 24Section 250

…Mad. HC) (Page No. 16 to 19 of LPB) • ITO v. Surya Incubation clusters [2014] 65 SOT 70 (Pune Trib.) (Page No. 20 to 25 of LPB) • Harvindarpal Mehta (HUF) v. DCIT [2010] 122 ITD 93 (Mum Trib.) (Page No. 26 to 33 of LPB) • Gesco Corporation Ltd. v. ACIT [2009] 31 SOT 132 (Mum Trib.) (Page No. 34 to 45 of LPB) • ITO v. Shanaya Enterprises (ITA No.3648/MUM/2010) (Mum Trib.) (Page No. 46 to 55 of LPB) 12. Also, the AO has stated that the Assessee has recovered the entire cost of the property by way of interest free security deposit. Piramal Healthcare Ltd. occupies an area of 29,780 sq. ft. which is approximately 10…

OM ESTATE & FINANCE (P) LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 7(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2133/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble S/Shri Sanjay Garg, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1389 & 1390/Mum/2011 Om Estates & Finance Pvt बनाम/ Income Tax Officer, 7(1)(2), Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 764-E Umrigar Bldg, M K Road, Mumbai. Tilak Road, Parsi Colony, Dadar, Mumbai-400014 स्थायी ऱेखा सुं./ Pan : Aaaco1199H (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Devdatta MainkarFor Respondent: Dr.S Pandian
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 194Section 24

…tels as claimed by the assessee. In support of the contentions raised by the ld.AR, he placed reliance on the following decisions: i ) Mohiddin Hotels (P) Ltd. reported in 284 ITR 229 (Bom); ii) Plaza Hotels (P) Ltd-147 ITD 98 (Mum) iii) Gesco Corporation Ltd-31 SOT 132 (Mum) iv) Sultan Brothers P Ltd 51 ITR 353 (SC) 6. Per contra, the ld.DR vehemently opposed the argument of the ld. AR by relying on the orders of the authorities below. 7. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the material placed before us. We find that the assessee was owner of the hotel comprised in land admeasuring a…

OM ESTATES & FINANCE P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 7(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1390/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble S/Shri Sanjay Garg, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1389 & 1390/Mum/2011 Om Estates & Finance Pvt बनाम/ Income Tax Officer, 7(1)(2), Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 764-E Umrigar Bldg, M K Road, Mumbai. Tilak Road, Parsi Colony, Dadar, Mumbai-400014 स्थायी ऱेखा सुं./ Pan : Aaaco1199H (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Devdatta MainkarFor Respondent: Dr.S Pandian
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 194Section 24

…tels as claimed by the assessee. In support of the contentions raised by the ld.AR, he placed reliance on the following decisions: i ) Mohiddin Hotels (P) Ltd. reported in 284 ITR 229 (Bom); ii) Plaza Hotels (P) Ltd-147 ITD 98 (Mum) iii) Gesco Corporation Ltd-31 SOT 132 (Mum) iv) Sultan Brothers P Ltd 51 ITR 353 (SC) 6. Per contra, the ld.DR vehemently opposed the argument of the ld. AR by relying on the orders of the authorities below. 7. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the material placed before us. We find that the assessee was owner of the hotel comprised in land admeasuring a…

OM ESTATES & FINANCE P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 7(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1389/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble S/Shri Sanjay Garg, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1389 & 1390/Mum/2011 Om Estates & Finance Pvt बनाम/ Income Tax Officer, 7(1)(2), Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 764-E Umrigar Bldg, M K Road, Mumbai. Tilak Road, Parsi Colony, Dadar, Mumbai-400014 स्थायी ऱेखा सुं./ Pan : Aaaco1199H (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Devdatta MainkarFor Respondent: Dr.S Pandian
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 194Section 24

…tels as claimed by the assessee. In support of the contentions raised by the ld.AR, he placed reliance on the following decisions: i ) Mohiddin Hotels (P) Ltd. reported in 284 ITR 229 (Bom); ii) Plaza Hotels (P) Ltd-147 ITD 98 (Mum) iii) Gesco Corporation Ltd-31 SOT 132 (Mum) iv) Sultan Brothers P Ltd 51 ITR 353 (SC) 6. Per contra, the ld.DR vehemently opposed the argument of the ld. AR by relying on the orders of the authorities below. 7. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the material placed before us. We find that the assessee was owner of the hotel comprised in land admeasuring a…

Gesco Corporation Ltd. v. ACIT (31 SOT 132) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax