Indira Jain v. ITO (Bom)

52 SOT 270Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2012#18033 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 22

Judgments citing Indira Jain v. ITO (Bom)

Manoj Suresh Tatooskar, Pune vs. Circle 1(1), Pune

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

ITA 1729/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri R.Y. Balawade
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…entity and, as held by courts, that it is a compendious expression for all the partners”. Finally, the learned Counsel for the assessee also drew my attention to the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Indira Jain Vs ITO (Bom) (2012) 52 SOT 270 (Bom.) wherein it has been held that while computing income from house property, the portion of the property used by the Assessee Company in which the assessee is a partner, income cannot be assessed u/s 22 of the Act on notional basis. The learned Counsel for the assessee drew my attention to Para 5.1 of the Tribunal Order which reads as under:-…

ITO, Ward-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. Pasl Windtech Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and filed by the department is dismissed

ITA 3460/AHD/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Bandish S. Soparkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Dev, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…pt with the banks/NBFCs. The appellant has contended that the rate of interest which could have been earned in respect of the bank deposit would be 5.5 to 7.75%. In this regard the decision of Hon'ble Bombay ITAT in the case of Smt. Indira S. Jain reported in 52 SOT 270 is relevant wherein the Hon'ble Bench has adopted and confirmed the rate of return at 8.5% on the cost of the property. I therefore deem it fit to adopt the rate of return on investment in the property at 8.5% which is at par with the prevailing interest rate on the long term fixed deposit during the relevant period. The ALV of the property is wo…

Pasl Windtech Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and filed by the department is dismissed

ITA 3212/AHD/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Bandish S. Soparkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Dev, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…pt with the banks/NBFCs. The appellant has contended that the rate of interest which could have been earned in respect of the bank deposit would be 5.5 to 7.75%. In this regard the decision of Hon'ble Bombay ITAT in the case of Smt. Indira S. Jain reported in 52 SOT 270 is relevant wherein the Hon'ble Bench has adopted and confirmed the rate of return at 8.5% on the cost of the property. I therefore deem it fit to adopt the rate of return on investment in the property at 8.5% which is at par with the prevailing interest rate on the long term fixed deposit during the relevant period. The ALV of the property is wo…

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

…Tribunal in these cases, much less those by the tribunal taking a different view, including in the case of Vivek Jain itself. This would have had the effect of the tribunal taking a different view in the matter, as in the case of Indra S. Jain vs. ITO [2012] 52 SOT 270 (Mum). Further, whether the tribunal is competent to read down a provision of law is another aspect of the matter that would arise for consideration in 13 Sharan Hospitality Private Limited vs. Dy. CIT the matter, i.e., where the same stand to be followed or, in fact, even relied upon. This in fact assumes all the more significance in a case as th…

Dhadda Diamonds P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 5(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 257/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singhdhadda Diamonds Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 1208, Panchratna, Opera House, Ward-5(1)(3),Room No.569, Mumbai 400 004 Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai 400 021 Pan:Aaacd 0539 L Appellant .. Respondent .. Appellant By Shri Yogesh Thar Shri Faril Bhatt, Ars .. Respondent By Shri Durga Dutt, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing .. 16-08-2016 Date Of Pronouncement 16-08-2016 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 22

…entity and, as held by courts, that it is a compendious expression for all the partners”. Finally, the learned Counsel for the assessee also drew my attention to the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Indira Jain Vs ITO (Bom) (2012) 52 SOT 270 (Bom.) wherein it has been held that while computing income from house property, the portion of the property used by the Assessee Company in which the assessee is a partner, income cannot be assessed u/s 22 of the Act on notional basis. The learned Counsel for the assessee drew my attention to Para 5.1 of the Tribunal Order which reads as under:-…

Indira Jain v. ITO (Bom) (52 SOT 270) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax