(i) Shakuntala Devi v. DDIT, 31 CCH 32 (Bang.) (ii) Kamal Mishra vs. ITO

19 SOT 251Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2008#7033 most cited
16

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 22Section 23(1)(c)Section 14ASection 23Section 23(1)(a)Section 8DSection 143(3)Section 1961 - Sections 14A

Issues it is cited on

section 23(1)(c)section 23(1)(a)section 23(1)section 23(4)section 23(5)section 23(2)annual letting valueconstruction peannual valuesection 22mistake apparent from recordsection 251

Judgments citing (i) Shakuntala Devi v. DDIT, 31 CCH 32 (Bang.) (ii) Kamal Mishra vs. ITO

HERCULES HOISTS LIMITED,RAIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 5445/MUM/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Prabhash Shankar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vasanti PatelFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi
Section 22Section 23(1)(a)Section 23(1)(c)

…017) 162 (70) 153(Mum) • Vikas Keshar Garud IT) (2016) 160 ITD 7 (Pune) • ITO vs. Metasxie (P) Lad, 170 TD 233 (M • Bachan R. Tendulkar Dy. CIT 2018 15 DTR (Mumbai) (Trib) 169 • Asst CTT v. Dr. Prabhs Sangh (2012) 1:39 ITD 504 (Del) • Kamal Mishra VITO (2008) 19 SOT 251 (Delhi) 8. However, learned Counsel of the assesses fairly agreed that on identical issue in assesse's own case Hon’ble Bombay High Court has admitted the question of law for A.Y. 2006-07. However, learned counsel also pointed out that the Tribunal in assensee's own case has not been able to consider the Judgement of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Co…

HERCULES HOISTS LIMITED,RAIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 5444/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Prabhash Shankar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vasanti PatelFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi
Section 22Section 23(1)(a)Section 23(1)(c)

…017) 162 (70) 153(Mum) • Vikas Keshar Garud IT) (2016) 160 ITD 7 (Pune) • ITO vs. Metasxie (P) Lad, 170 TD 233 (M • Bachan R. Tendulkar Dy. CIT 2018 15 DTR (Mumbai) (Trib) 169 • Asst CTT v. Dr. Prabhs Sangh (2012) 1:39 ITD 504 (Del) • Kamal Mishra VITO (2008) 19 SOT 251 (Delhi) 8. However, learned Counsel of the assesses fairly agreed that on identical issue in assesse's own case Hon’ble Bombay High Court has admitted the question of law for A.Y. 2006-07. However, learned counsel also pointed out that the Tribunal in assensee's own case has not been able to consider the Judgement of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Co…

HERCULES HOISTS LIMITED,RAIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 5443/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Prabhash Shankar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vasanti PatelFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi
Section 22Section 23(1)(a)Section 23(1)(c)

…017) 162 (70) 153(Mum) • Vikas Keshar Garud IT) (2016) 160 ITD 7 (Pune) • ITO vs. Metasxie (P) Lad, 170 TD 233 (M • Bachan R. Tendulkar Dy. CIT 2018 15 DTR (Mumbai) (Trib) 169 • Asst CTT v. Dr. Prabhs Sangh (2012) 1:39 ITD 504 (Del) • Kamal Mishra VITO (2008) 19 SOT 251 (Delhi) 8. However, learned Counsel of the assesses fairly agreed that on identical issue in assesse's own case Hon’ble Bombay High Court has admitted the question of law for A.Y. 2006-07. However, learned counsel also pointed out that the Tribunal in assensee's own case has not been able to consider the Judgement of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Co…

HERCULES HOISTS LIMITED,RAIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 5442/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Prabhash Shankar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vasanti PatelFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi
Section 22Section 23(1)(a)Section 23(1)(c)

…017) 162 (70) 153(Mum) • Vikas Keshar Garud IT) (2016) 160 ITD 7 (Pune) • ITO vs. Metasxie (P) Lad, 170 TD 233 (M • Bachan R. Tendulkar Dy. CIT 2018 15 DTR (Mumbai) (Trib) 169 • Asst CTT v. Dr. Prabhs Sangh (2012) 1:39 ITD 504 (Del) • Kamal Mishra VITO (2008) 19 SOT 251 (Delhi) 8. However, learned Counsel of the assesses fairly agreed that on identical issue in assesse's own case Hon’ble Bombay High Court has admitted the question of law for A.Y. 2006-07. However, learned counsel also pointed out that the Tribunal in assensee's own case has not been able to consider the Judgement of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Co…

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S ANSAL HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2731/DEL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2007-08] Dcit, Vs Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd., Central Circle-20, Ugf-15, Indraprastha Building, 21, New Delhi. Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan-Aaaca0377R Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80Section 80I

…property shall be NIL in accordance with the provisions of section 23 (1)( c) of the Act • CIT v. Joy Jacob: 151 ITR 19 (Ker.) • Premsudha Exports (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT: 110 ITD 158 (Mum. Trib.) • Shakuntala Devi v. DDIT: 31 CCH 32 (Bang.) • Kamal Mishra v. ITO: 19 SOT 251 (Del.)(Further appeal dismissed by the High Court) • Ms. Priyananki Singh Sood v. ACIT: [2019] 174 ITD 371 (Delhi - Trib.) • ITO v. Metaoxide (P.) Ltd. - [2018] 170 ITD 235 (Mumbai - Trib.) • Raj Landmark (P.) Ltd. v. ITO - [2018] 172 ITD 339 (Jaipur ITAT) • Sachin R. Tendulkar v. 172 ITD 266 (Mumbai - Trib.) • Sonu Realtors (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT: [20…

MORA] FINANZ CORPORATION,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRLE - 5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as per above direction

ITA 155/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 22

…tha Export Ltd. 110 ITD 158 (Mum.) (b) SachinR.Tendulkar, 172 ITD 266 (Mum.) (c) Saif Ali Khan, 172 ITD 345 (Mum.) (d) Vikas Keshav Garud, 160 ITD 7 (Pune) (e) Mehta Oxide (P) Ltd., 170 ITD 235 (Mum.) (f) Dr.Prabha Sandhi, 139 ITD 404 (Del.) (g) Kamal Mishra, 19 SOT 251 (Del.) 12. Stock in trade of business not liable to notional Income taxation. a. It is reiterated that the stock-in-trade held in the course of business is not liable to taxation of notional income as income under the head IFHP. b. The above submission is without prejudice to the fact that your appellant did not own or possess stock of the premise…

MORAJ FINANZ CORPORATION,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCLT CENTRAL CIRLE - 5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as per above direction

ITA 154/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 22

…tha Export Ltd. 110 ITD 158 (Mum.) (b) SachinR.Tendulkar, 172 ITD 266 (Mum.) (c) Saif Ali Khan, 172 ITD 345 (Mum.) (d) Vikas Keshav Garud, 160 ITD 7 (Pune) (e) Mehta Oxide (P) Ltd., 170 ITD 235 (Mum.) (f) Dr.Prabha Sandhi, 139 ITD 404 (Del.) (g) Kamal Mishra, 19 SOT 251 (Del.) 12. Stock in trade of business not liable to notional Income taxation. a. It is reiterated that the stock-in-trade held in the course of business is not liable to taxation of notional income as income under the head IFHP. b. The above submission is without prejudice to the fact that your appellant did not own or possess stock of the premise…

MORAJ FINANZ CORPORATION,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as per above direction

ITA 153/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 22

…tha Export Ltd. 110 ITD 158 (Mum.) (b) SachinR.Tendulkar, 172 ITD 266 (Mum.) (c) Saif Ali Khan, 172 ITD 345 (Mum.) (d) Vikas Keshav Garud, 160 ITD 7 (Pune) (e) Mehta Oxide (P) Ltd., 170 ITD 235 (Mum.) (f) Dr.Prabha Sandhi, 139 ITD 404 (Del.) (g) Kamal Mishra, 19 SOT 251 (Del.) 12. Stock in trade of business not liable to notional Income taxation. a. It is reiterated that the stock-in-trade held in the course of business is not liable to taxation of notional income as income under the head IFHP. b. The above submission is without prejudice to the fact that your appellant did not own or possess stock of the premise…

INCOME TAX OFFICER (IT)-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. SHRI KARL JIMMY DARUWALLA, MUMBAI

ITA 5507/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Sh. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5507/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kumar SinghFor Respondent: Shri Firoze B. Andhyarijine
Section 48Section 49

…nd not year in which assessee became owner of the asset. Further, the appellant has also relied upon various other judgments to support their claim, which are: • Asstt. DIT v. Rajeev Ajmani [IT Appeal No. 2057 of 2011] (Delhi). • Kamal Mishra v. ITO [2008] 19 SOT 251 (Delhi). • Smt. Mina Deogun v. ITO [2008] 19 SOT 183 (KoL). 10 I.T.A. No. 5507/Mum/2017 Shri Karl Jimmy Daruwalla, • Mrs. Pushpa Sofat v. ITO [2002] 81ITD1 (Chd.)(SMC). • Dy. CIT v. Smt. Meera Khera [2004] 2 SOT 902 (Mum.). • Asstt. CIT v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. [IT Appeal No. 2672 of 2006] (Mum.). • Arun Shungloo Trust v. CIT [2012] 18 tax…

SACHIN R. TENDULKAR,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 23(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 3755/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj JainFor Respondent: Shri V. Vidhyadhar
Section 143(3)Section 23(1)(c)Section 23(2)

…Thereafter, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) distinguished the case laws referred by the assessee. These case laws were as under: Premsudha Exports(P) Ltd. V/s.ACIT CC, Mumbai ([2008} 110 TTJ 158(Mum); Kamal Mishra V/s.Income Tax Officer [2008] 19 SOT 251 and ACIT V/s.Dr.Prabha Sanghi [2012] 27 Taxman.Com 317(Delhi) 7. However, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) granted some relief to the assessee by holding that as per the information available on the website by name www.magicbricks.com, the probable rate for Sapphire Park should be Rs.15,000/- per month. Accordingly, he directed the…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ANSAL HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION LTD., NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year 2006-07 is hereby allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1576/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year : 2004-05 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Acit, Central Circle-20, Ansal Housing & Construction New Delhi. Ltd., Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri S. K. Jain, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 35DSection 80I

…e for the purposes of section 22 of the Act. He relied on the decision in the case of Premsudha Exports (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT, 110 ITD 158. He also relied on the following decisions :- (i) Shakuntala Devi vs. DDIT, 31 CCH 32 (Bang.) (ii) Kamal Mishra vs. ITO, 19 SOT 251 (Del.) (iii) ACIT vs. Dr. Prabha Sanghi, 139 ITD 504 (Del.) (iv) Vikas Keshav Garud vs. ITO, 160 ITD 7 (Pune-Trib.) (v) S.M. Chandrashekar vs. ITO, 76 taxman.com 278 (Bang.-Trib.) (vi) CIT vs. Joy Jacob, 151 ITR 19 (Kerala) 35. Ld. counsel further pointed out that the properties at Sl. Nos.12, 13 and 14 were merely farm lands, on which no residen…

THE ACIT.,, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ANSAL HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year 2006-07 is hereby allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1254/DEL/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year : 2004-05 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Acit, Central Circle-20, Ansal Housing & Construction New Delhi. Ltd., Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri S. K. Jain, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 35DSection 80I

…e for the purposes of section 22 of the Act. He relied on the decision in the case of Premsudha Exports (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT, 110 ITD 158. He also relied on the following decisions :- (i) Shakuntala Devi vs. DDIT, 31 CCH 32 (Bang.) (ii) Kamal Mishra vs. ITO, 19 SOT 251 (Del.) (iii) ACIT vs. Dr. Prabha Sanghi, 139 ITD 504 (Del.) (iv) Vikas Keshav Garud vs. ITO, 160 ITD 7 (Pune-Trib.) (v) S.M. Chandrashekar vs. ITO, 76 taxman.com 278 (Bang.-Trib.) (vi) CIT vs. Joy Jacob, 151 ITR 19 (Kerala) 35. Ld. counsel further pointed out that the properties at Sl. Nos.12, 13 and 14 were merely farm lands, on which no residen…

ANSAL HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year 2006-07 is hereby allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1248/DEL/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year : 2004-05 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Acit, Central Circle-20, Ansal Housing & Construction New Delhi. Ltd., Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri S. K. Jain, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 35DSection 80I

…e for the purposes of section 22 of the Act. He relied on the decision in the case of Premsudha Exports (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT, 110 ITD 158. He also relied on the following decisions :- (i) Shakuntala Devi vs. DDIT, 31 CCH 32 (Bang.) (ii) Kamal Mishra vs. ITO, 19 SOT 251 (Del.) (iii) ACIT vs. Dr. Prabha Sanghi, 139 ITD 504 (Del.) (iv) Vikas Keshav Garud vs. ITO, 160 ITD 7 (Pune-Trib.) (v) S.M. Chandrashekar vs. ITO, 76 taxman.com 278 (Bang.-Trib.) (vi) CIT vs. Joy Jacob, 151 ITR 19 (Kerala) 35. Ld. counsel further pointed out that the properties at Sl. Nos.12, 13 and 14 were merely farm lands, on which no residen…

ANSAL HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CC-20, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year 2006-07 is hereby allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3193/DEL/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2017AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year : 2004-05 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Acit, Central Circle-20, Ansal Housing & Construction New Delhi. Ltd., Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri S. K. Jain, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 35DSection 80I

…e for the purposes of section 22 of the Act. He relied on the decision in the case of Premsudha Exports (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT, 110 ITD 158. He also relied on the following decisions :- (i) Shakuntala Devi vs. DDIT, 31 CCH 32 (Bang.) (ii) Kamal Mishra vs. ITO, 19 SOT 251 (Del.) (iii) ACIT vs. Dr. Prabha Sanghi, 139 ITD 504 (Del.) (iv) Vikas Keshav Garud vs. ITO, 160 ITD 7 (Pune-Trib.) (v) S.M. Chandrashekar vs. ITO, 76 taxman.com 278 (Bang.-Trib.) (vi) CIT vs. Joy Jacob, 151 ITR 19 (Kerala) 35. Ld. counsel further pointed out that the properties at Sl. Nos.12, 13 and 14 were merely farm lands, on which no residen…

M/S. RENU SHAMLAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1100/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Sept 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Sh.O.P.Kant

Section 23Section 23(1)(a)Section 23(1)(c)

…relying upon section 23(1)(c), it was submitted that the ALV should be taken as NIL as against Rs.8 lacs as confirmed by the CIT(A). Reliance was placed upon ACIT, Delhi vs Prabha Sanghi para 10, 13 [2013] (1) TMI 18; Kamal Mishra vs ITO, Ward 31(2) [2008] 19 SOT 251 (Delhi); and DLF Office Developers v ACIT, Delhi [2008] 23 SOT 19 (DELHI) and Prem Sudha Exports Pvt. Ltd. vs ACIT 17 SOT 293 (Mum.). 4. The Ld. Sr. DR, Mr. Sonbhadra relied upon the impugned order. No contrary decision in support of the Revenue was cited. Nor any distinction on Page 3 of 6 I.T.A .No.-1100/Del/2014 facts from the decisions ci…

SHARAN HOSPITALITY P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 9(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 6717/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6717/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Sharan Hospitality Private Limited Dy. Cit – Circle 9(3) बनाम/ Ground Floor, Gys Infinity, Mumbai Paranjape ‘B’, Scheme, Subhas Road, Vs. Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-57 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aagcs 8608 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. Priyanka Jain ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K. Mahondas सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 26.5.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 12.9.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 18.9.2012, Dismissing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting Its Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2009- 10 Vide Order Dated 22.12.2011. 2. The Only Issue Arising In This Appeal Is The Correct Amount At Which The Annual Value In Respect Of The Assessee’S Swami Vivekanand (S.V.) Road, Mumbai Property

For Appellant: Ms. Priyanka JainFor Respondent: Shri K. Mahondas
Section 143(3)Section 22Section 23

…, though self occupied, is with the intent of letting it, which is apparent in the instant case, with evidence being led to exhibit the efforts toward the same. Reliance is also placed on a number of decisions by the tribunal, viz, Kamal Mishra vs. ITO [2008] 19 SOT 251 (Del- Trib); Smt. Poonam Sawhney vs. AO [2008] 20 SOT 69 (Del.); Asst. CIT vs. Dr. Prabha Sanghi [2012] 139 ITD 504 (Del); DLF Office Developers vs. Asst. CIT [2008] 23 SOT 19 (Del); Indu Chandra vs. Dy. CIT (in ITA No. 96/2011 (Luck.); Shakuntala Devi vs. Dy. DIT (in ITA No. 1524/Bang/2010 dated 20.12.2011); 5 Sharan Hospitality Private Limited…