Humayun Properties Limited v. CIT

44 ITR 73High Court1962#17925 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2019.

Judgments citing Humayun Properties Limited v. CIT

Godfrey Philips India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 8(1), Mumbai

In the result, the ground raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5317/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Choudhary Arun Kumar Singh, D.R
Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s. God Frey Philips Addl CIT 8(1), India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Sahara Road, Vs. Mumbai Chakala Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400 049 PAN: AABCG 4768K (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Yogesh Thar, A.R. Revenue by : Shri Choudhary Arun Kumar Singh, D.R. Date of Hearing : 18.07.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 13.09.2019 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against…

Addll. CIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Rambagh Palace Hotel Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result disallowance made by Ld

ITA 3801/DEL/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Apr 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishirambagh Palace Hotels Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito, C/O Pricewater House Coopers Ward-15(2), Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi Sucheta Bhawan, (Gate No. 2, 3Rd Floor) 11-A, New Delhi Pan:Aaach6899P (Appellant) (Respondent) Addll. Cit, Vs. Rambagh Palace Hotels Pvt. Ltd, Range- 15(1), Cr Building, C/O Pricewater House Coopers Pvt. New Delhi Ltd, Sucheta Bhawan, (Gate No. 2, 3Rd Floor) 11-A, New Delhi Pan:Aaach6899P (Appellant) (Respondent) Rambagh Palace Hotels Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit C/O Pricewater House Coopers Ward-15(1), Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi Sucheta Bhawan, (Gate No. 2, 3Rd Floor) 11-A, New Delhi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri FR Meena, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…al Kishore And Another vs Commissioner of Income Tax (224 ITR 414) • New Shorrock Spinning And Manufacturing Company Limited. Vs CIT (30 ITR 338) • CIT vs Saravana Spinning Mills P. Limited. (293 ITR 201) (Supreme Court) • Humayun Properties Limited, vs. CIT (44 ITR 73) • Asian Hotels Limited, vs DCIT (104 TTJ 921) (ITAT Delhi) • Liberty Cinema, vs CIT (52 ITR 153) (Calcutta High Court) • CIT Vs Glen View Rubber Company P. Limited. 291 ITR 1 KERALA High Court • K. T. M. T. M. Abdul Kayoom And Another, vs CIT 44 ITR 689(SC) • Alembic Chemical Works Company Limited, vs CIT 177 ITR 377 (SC) • Assam Bengal Cement Com…

Ramabagh Palace Hotels Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result disallowance made by Ld

ITA 3605/DEL/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Apr 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishirambagh Palace Hotels Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito, C/O Pricewater House Coopers Ward-15(2), Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi Sucheta Bhawan, (Gate No. 2, 3Rd Floor) 11-A, New Delhi Pan:Aaach6899P (Appellant) (Respondent) Addll. Cit, Vs. Rambagh Palace Hotels Pvt. Ltd, Range- 15(1), Cr Building, C/O Pricewater House Coopers Pvt. New Delhi Ltd, Sucheta Bhawan, (Gate No. 2, 3Rd Floor) 11-A, New Delhi Pan:Aaach6899P (Appellant) (Respondent) Rambagh Palace Hotels Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit C/O Pricewater House Coopers Ward-15(1), Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi Sucheta Bhawan, (Gate No. 2, 3Rd Floor) 11-A, New Delhi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri FR Meena, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…al Kishore And Another vs Commissioner of Income Tax (224 ITR 414) • New Shorrock Spinning And Manufacturing Company Limited. Vs CIT (30 ITR 338) • CIT vs Saravana Spinning Mills P. Limited. (293 ITR 201) (Supreme Court) • Humayun Properties Limited, vs. CIT (44 ITR 73) • Asian Hotels Limited, vs DCIT (104 TTJ 921) (ITAT Delhi) • Liberty Cinema, vs CIT (52 ITR 153) (Calcutta High Court) • CIT Vs Glen View Rubber Company P. Limited. 291 ITR 1 KERALA High Court • K. T. M. T. M. Abdul Kayoom And Another, vs CIT 44 ITR 689(SC) • Alembic Chemical Works Company Limited, vs CIT 177 ITR 377 (SC) • Assam Bengal Cement Com…

M/S. Eco Rrb Infra Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 6633/DEL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri T. S. Kapoor & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, Raj Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amresh Bedi, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 30A

…ts and circumstances of the case. 8. A bare perusal of the impugned order passed by Ld. CIT(A) shows that the same has been passed on the basis of conjectures and surmises and by wrongly placing reliance on the judgment cited as Humayun Properties Ltd. Vs CIT 44 ITR 73 (Cal.) wherein luxury repairs and current repairs have been distinctly categorized and only luxury repairs have been held to be capital expenditure, which is not the position in the present case. 9. Hon'ble High Court in the judgement cited as CIT Vs Kaira Distt. Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd., 192 ITR 608 (Guj.) held that expenditure incur…

Surinder Madan

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/364/2013HC Delhi22 Aug 2013
Section 260ASection 30

…e word „repair‟ involves „renewal‟ of existing or replacement of a part or a supporting part and not complete replacement or reconstruction. This distinction was drawn by Calcutta High Court in Humayun Properties Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax [1962] 44 ITR 73, wherein the following passage was quoted from the speech of Lord Justice Buckley in the case of Lurcott v. Wakely and Wheeler: "Repair and renew are not words expressive of a clear contrast. Repair always involves renewal; renewal of a part; of a subordinate part. A skylight leaks; repair is effected by hacking out the putties, putting in…

Humayun Properties Limited v. CIT (44 ITR 73) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax