Indian City Properties v. CIT

55 ITR 262High Court1965#12905 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2024.

Judgments citing Indian City Properties v. CIT

MICHELLE Y. POONAWALLA,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the AYs 2013-14

ITA 665/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 143(2)Section 22Section 23Section 24Section 263Section 57

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “ए” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.664 & 665/PUN/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2017-18 Michelle Y. Poonawalla, Dy. CIT, Circle-7, Pune 16/B-1, Sarosh Bhavan, 2nd Floor, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Opp. NIV, Vs. Pune – 411001 PAN : AANPV5236G अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee by : N O N E Department by : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date of hearing : 01-07-2024 Date of 18-09-2024 Pronouncement : आदेश / ORDER PER ASTHA CHA…

MICHELLE Y. POONAWALLA,PUNE vs. DCIT-CIR-7, PUNE , PUNE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the AYs 2013-14

ITA 664/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 143(2)Section 22Section 23Section 24Section 263Section 57

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SMT. SEEMA SOBTI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 5899/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 54Section 54E

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘A’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 ACIT, CIRCLE-50(1), Vs. SEEMA SOBTI, NEW DELHI 3B/7, NEA, OLD RAJINDER NAGAR, NEW DELHI – 110 060 (PAN: ABNPS644B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Department by Smt. Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. DR Assessee by Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv. & Sh. Shivansh Pandya, Adv. ORDER PER H.S. SIHU, JM This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the Order dated 21/08/2015 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-17, New Delhi relating to assessment year 2012-13 on the following gr…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SHRI PRADEEP SOBTI, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the 02 appeals filed by the Revenue stand

ITA 5901/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54E

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘A’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 ACIT, CIRCLE-50(1), Vs. AKSHAY SOBTI, NEW DELHI 3B/7, NEA OLD RAJINDER NAGAR, NEW DELHI – 110 060 (PAN: ATYPS9496B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 ACIT, CIRCLE-50(1), Vs. PRADEEP SOBTI, NEW DELHI 3B/7, NEA OLD RAJINDER NAGAR, NEW DELHI – 110 060 (PAN: ABXPS9866N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Department by Smt. Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. DR Assessee by Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv. & Sh. Shivansh Pandya, Adv. ORDER PER H.S. SIHU,…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SHRI AKSHAY SOBTI, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the 02 appeals filed by the Revenue stand

ITA 5900/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54E

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘A’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 ACIT, CIRCLE-50(1), Vs. AKSHAY SOBTI, NEW DELHI 3B/7, NEA OLD RAJINDER NAGAR, NEW DELHI – 110 060 (PAN: ATYPS9496B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 ACIT, CIRCLE-50(1), Vs. PRADEEP SOBTI, NEW DELHI 3B/7, NEA OLD RAJINDER NAGAR, NEW DELHI – 110 060 (PAN: ABXPS9866N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Department by Smt. Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. DR Assessee by Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv. & Sh. Shivansh Pandya, Adv. ORDER PER H.S. SIHU,…

DCIT 24(3), MUMBAI vs. GUNDECHA BUILDERS, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the revenue for the Asst

ITA 6103/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajendra (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Mrs. Vidhisha KalraFor Respondent: Shri. Vimal Punmiya

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…cumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding the lease rent income of Rs. 1,77,33,629/- as income from house property as against business income held by the A.O. by ignoring the decision in the case of Indian City Properties Ltd. Vs. CIT 55 ITR 262(Cal) and also ignoring the fact that the property was held as trading asset and not as investment. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting addition of Rs. 22,49,289/- on account of allocation of common expenditure to poisar project and Sakinaka ‘D’ project by ignoring the fact that said ex…

DCIT 24(3), MUMBAI vs. GUNDECHA BUILDERS, MUMBAI

In the result, Department’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3906/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Shrikant Mamdeo

…of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding the lease rent income as M/s. Gundecha Builders 2 income from house property as against business income held by the Assessing Officer ignoring the decision in the case of Indian City Properties Vs. CIT 55 ITR 262 (Cal) and also ignoring the fact that the property was held as investment and not as trading asset". 3. Briefly stated the facts relating to this issue are, assessee a partnership firm is engaged in business as “Builder”. For the assessment year under consideration, the assessee filed its return of income on 25th September 2010, declaring total i…

VISHWANATH ACHARAYA,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 11(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7976/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7976/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08)

For Respondent: Shri B. Yadagiri

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…s received from the partnership firm by the assessee and no copy of utilization of plot by the firm has been filed by the assessee. The CIT(A) relied upon the decision in the case of D M Vakil v. CIT(Bom.) 14 ITR 298 , Indian City Properties Ltd. v. CIT (Cal) 55 ITR 262, East India Housing and Land Development Trust Limited v. CIT (SC) 42 ITR 49 wherein it is held that the owner of property is liable to be charged to House Property Income. Thus, the CIT(A) upheld the orders of the AO. The CIT(A) after considering the submission of the assessee, restricted the disallowance to 8% of market value of the property af…