ITO v. Chem Mech (P) Ltd.

83 ITD 427Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2002#4480 most cited

What is ITO v. Chem Mech (P) Ltd. authority for?

Submissions made by the assessee's counsel in a case concerning additions to income due to alleged on-money payments are to be considered in their entirety. The assessment should not add the same amount twice for different assessment years.

27

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

Also referred to as

ITO v. Chem Mech (P) Ltd. · section 133A · on-money payments · confirmation from buyers · double addition · assessment years

Also reported as

2 SOT 1

Sections most often in play

Section 115BBESection 131(1A)Section 133ASection 234Section 250Section 28Section 65BSection 133A(3)

Issues it is cited on

section 23(5)section 9(1)(ii)section 80absection 73resulting companyannual letting valuetransferor companyclarificatory amendmentsection 24(b)annual valueretrospective amendmentsection 65b

Judgments citing ITO v. Chem Mech (P) Ltd.

FOUNDATION ONE INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, COIMBATORE

In the result the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 3152/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3148 To 3152/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2017-18 Foundation One Infrastructures Assistant Commissioner Of Private Limited, Vs. Income Tax, 4/3, G.D.Street, Race Course, Central Circle-1 Coimbatore-641 018. Coimbatore. Pan: Aabcf-1701-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. T.Banusekar, Advocate & Mr.A.Suraj Nahar, C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per George George K: These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Five Separate Orders Of Cit(A), Chennai-20, (All Dated 30.09.2024) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2013-14 To 2017-18. 2. There Is A Delay Of 11 Days In Filing These Appeals. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Along With Ita Nos. 3148 To 3152//Chny/2024 Affidavit Stating Therein The Reasons For Belated Filing Of These Appeals. The Reasons Stated In The Condonation Application For Belated Filing Of These Appeals Is That Managing Director Of The Assessee Was Stranded Amidst Heavy Rains Caused By Cyclone Fengal At Puducherry During The Relevant Period & Hence, There Was Delay Of 11 Days.

For Appellant: Mr. T.Banusekar, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 115BSection 131Section 133ASection 250Section 28

…is context, learned AR relied on following case laws:- i) CIT Vs. D.D.Gears Limited (2012) 25 taxmann.com 562 (Del) ITA Nos. 3148 to 3152//CHNY/2024 ii) ACIT Vs.Rivervalley Flour Mills P.Ltd (2013) 147 taxmann.com 560(Patna) iii) ACIT Vs Omprakash & Co (2004) 2 SOT 1 (Mum Trib) 11. It is also submitted by the learned AR that AO has not proceeded against buyers who have alleged to have paid on-money, whereas, assessee has obtained confirmation from buyers stating that they have only paid amounts disclosed in the sale deed. On merits, the learned AR submitted that additions made for AY 2015- 16 is bad in law, beca…

FOUNDATION ONE INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, COIMBATORE

In the result the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 3151/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3148 To 3152/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2017-18 Foundation One Infrastructures Assistant Commissioner Of Private Limited, Vs. Income Tax, 4/3, G.D.Street, Race Course, Central Circle-1 Coimbatore-641 018. Coimbatore. Pan: Aabcf-1701-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. T.Banusekar, Advocate & Mr.A.Suraj Nahar, C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per George George K: These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Five Separate Orders Of Cit(A), Chennai-20, (All Dated 30.09.2024) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2013-14 To 2017-18. 2. There Is A Delay Of 11 Days In Filing These Appeals. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Along With Ita Nos. 3148 To 3152//Chny/2024 Affidavit Stating Therein The Reasons For Belated Filing Of These Appeals. The Reasons Stated In The Condonation Application For Belated Filing Of These Appeals Is That Managing Director Of The Assessee Was Stranded Amidst Heavy Rains Caused By Cyclone Fengal At Puducherry During The Relevant Period & Hence, There Was Delay Of 11 Days.

For Appellant: Mr. T.Banusekar, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 115BSection 131Section 133ASection 250Section 28

…is context, learned AR relied on following case laws:- i) CIT Vs. D.D.Gears Limited (2012) 25 taxmann.com 562 (Del) ITA Nos. 3148 to 3152//CHNY/2024 ii) ACIT Vs.Rivervalley Flour Mills P.Ltd (2013) 147 taxmann.com 560(Patna) iii) ACIT Vs Omprakash & Co (2004) 2 SOT 1 (Mum Trib) 11. It is also submitted by the learned AR that AO has not proceeded against buyers who have alleged to have paid on-money, whereas, assessee has obtained confirmation from buyers stating that they have only paid amounts disclosed in the sale deed. On merits, the learned AR submitted that additions made for AY 2015- 16 is bad in law, beca…

FOUNDATION ONE INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, COIMBATORE

In the result the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 3150/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3148 To 3152/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2017-18 Foundation One Infrastructures Assistant Commissioner Of Private Limited, Vs. Income Tax, 4/3, G.D.Street, Race Course, Central Circle-1 Coimbatore-641 018. Coimbatore. Pan: Aabcf-1701-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. T.Banusekar, Advocate & Mr.A.Suraj Nahar, C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per George George K: These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Five Separate Orders Of Cit(A), Chennai-20, (All Dated 30.09.2024) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2013-14 To 2017-18. 2. There Is A Delay Of 11 Days In Filing These Appeals. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Along With Ita Nos. 3148 To 3152//Chny/2024 Affidavit Stating Therein The Reasons For Belated Filing Of These Appeals. The Reasons Stated In The Condonation Application For Belated Filing Of These Appeals Is That Managing Director Of The Assessee Was Stranded Amidst Heavy Rains Caused By Cyclone Fengal At Puducherry During The Relevant Period & Hence, There Was Delay Of 11 Days.

For Appellant: Mr. T.Banusekar, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 115BSection 131Section 133ASection 250Section 28

…is context, learned AR relied on following case laws:- i) CIT Vs. D.D.Gears Limited (2012) 25 taxmann.com 562 (Del) ITA Nos. 3148 to 3152//CHNY/2024 ii) ACIT Vs.Rivervalley Flour Mills P.Ltd (2013) 147 taxmann.com 560(Patna) iii) ACIT Vs Omprakash & Co (2004) 2 SOT 1 (Mum Trib) 11. It is also submitted by the learned AR that AO has not proceeded against buyers who have alleged to have paid on-money, whereas, assessee has obtained confirmation from buyers stating that they have only paid amounts disclosed in the sale deed. On merits, the learned AR submitted that additions made for AY 2015- 16 is bad in law, beca…

FOUNDATION ONE INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, COIMBATORE

In the result the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 3149/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3148 To 3152/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2017-18 Foundation One Infrastructures Assistant Commissioner Of Private Limited, Vs. Income Tax, 4/3, G.D.Street, Race Course, Central Circle-1 Coimbatore-641 018. Coimbatore. Pan: Aabcf-1701-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. T.Banusekar, Advocate & Mr.A.Suraj Nahar, C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per George George K: These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Five Separate Orders Of Cit(A), Chennai-20, (All Dated 30.09.2024) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2013-14 To 2017-18. 2. There Is A Delay Of 11 Days In Filing These Appeals. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Along With Ita Nos. 3148 To 3152//Chny/2024 Affidavit Stating Therein The Reasons For Belated Filing Of These Appeals. The Reasons Stated In The Condonation Application For Belated Filing Of These Appeals Is That Managing Director Of The Assessee Was Stranded Amidst Heavy Rains Caused By Cyclone Fengal At Puducherry During The Relevant Period & Hence, There Was Delay Of 11 Days.

For Appellant: Mr. T.Banusekar, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 115BSection 131Section 133ASection 250Section 28

…is context, learned AR relied on following case laws:- i) CIT Vs. D.D.Gears Limited (2012) 25 taxmann.com 562 (Del) ITA Nos. 3148 to 3152//CHNY/2024 ii) ACIT Vs.Rivervalley Flour Mills P.Ltd (2013) 147 taxmann.com 560(Patna) iii) ACIT Vs Omprakash & Co (2004) 2 SOT 1 (Mum Trib) 11. It is also submitted by the learned AR that AO has not proceeded against buyers who have alleged to have paid on-money, whereas, assessee has obtained confirmation from buyers stating that they have only paid amounts disclosed in the sale deed. On merits, the learned AR submitted that additions made for AY 2015- 16 is bad in law, beca…

FOUNDATION ONE INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, COIMBATORE

In the result the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 3148/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3148 To 3152/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2017-18 Foundation One Infrastructures Assistant Commissioner Of Private Limited, Vs. Income Tax, 4/3, G.D.Street, Race Course, Central Circle-1 Coimbatore-641 018. Coimbatore. Pan: Aabcf-1701-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. T.Banusekar, Advocate & Mr.A.Suraj Nahar, C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per George George K: These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Five Separate Orders Of Cit(A), Chennai-20, (All Dated 30.09.2024) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2013-14 To 2017-18. 2. There Is A Delay Of 11 Days In Filing These Appeals. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Along With Ita Nos. 3148 To 3152//Chny/2024 Affidavit Stating Therein The Reasons For Belated Filing Of These Appeals. The Reasons Stated In The Condonation Application For Belated Filing Of These Appeals Is That Managing Director Of The Assessee Was Stranded Amidst Heavy Rains Caused By Cyclone Fengal At Puducherry During The Relevant Period & Hence, There Was Delay Of 11 Days.

For Appellant: Mr. T.Banusekar, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 115BSection 131Section 133ASection 250Section 28

…is context, learned AR relied on following case laws:- i) CIT Vs. D.D.Gears Limited (2012) 25 taxmann.com 562 (Del) ITA Nos. 3148 to 3152//CHNY/2024 ii) ACIT Vs.Rivervalley Flour Mills P.Ltd (2013) 147 taxmann.com 560(Patna) iii) ACIT Vs Omprakash & Co (2004) 2 SOT 1 (Mum Trib) 11. It is also submitted by the learned AR that AO has not proceeded against buyers who have alleged to have paid on-money, whereas, assessee has obtained confirmation from buyers stating that they have only paid amounts disclosed in the sale deed. On merits, the learned AR submitted that additions made for AY 2015- 16 is bad in law, beca…

ACIT- CC -4(2), MUMBAI vs. CHALET HOTELS LTD. (AS A SUCCESSOR TO M/S. MAGNA DISTRIBUTION & WAREHOUSING PVT. LTD.), MUMBAI

ITA 2513/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2505/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2507/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2510/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2511/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2513/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Acit, Central Circle-4(2) बिधम/ M/S. Chalet Hotels Ltd Room No. 1918, 19Th Floor, (As A M/S. Magna Vs. Air India Building, Nariman Distribution & Point, Mumbai-400021. Warehousing Pvt. Ltd.) Plot No. C-30 Raheja Tower, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No.Aaack0411E आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1754/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1755/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1756/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Genext Hardware & Parks बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-4(2) Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 1918, Air India Vs. Raheja Tower, Plot No. C- Building, Nariman Point, 30, Oppo. Sidbi, Bandra Mumbai-400021. Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaccg5567F

Section 132Section 14ASection 69C

…) to that extent is reversed. 43. The next question before us is the manner of computation of ALV for arriving at the notional rental income assessable u/s 22 & 23 of the Act. It is noted that the AO had relied upon the decisions of ITO Vs Chem Mech (P) Ltd (83 ITD 427) and ACIT Vs Om Prakash & Co. (2 SOT 1) to justify the estimation at 8.5% of value of inventory. The Ld. AR contended that the AO’s action of estimating rent at 8.5% of the value of inventory was arbitrary, without any basis and highly excessive. The Ld. AR brought to our notice the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case CIT Vs. Tip top…

ACIT- CC -4(2), MUMBAI vs. CHALET HOTELS LTD. (AS A SUCCESSOR TO M/S. MAGNA DISTRIBUTION & WAREHOUSING PVT. LTD.), MUMBAI

ITA 2511/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2505/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2507/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2510/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2511/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2513/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Acit, Central Circle-4(2) बिधम/ M/S. Chalet Hotels Ltd Room No. 1918, 19Th Floor, (As A M/S. Magna Vs. Air India Building, Nariman Distribution & Point, Mumbai-400021. Warehousing Pvt. Ltd.) Plot No. C-30 Raheja Tower, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No.Aaack0411E आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1754/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1755/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1756/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Genext Hardware & Parks बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-4(2) Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 1918, Air India Vs. Raheja Tower, Plot No. C- Building, Nariman Point, 30, Oppo. Sidbi, Bandra Mumbai-400021. Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaccg5567F

Section 132Section 14ASection 69C

…) to that extent is reversed. 43. The next question before us is the manner of computation of ALV for arriving at the notional rental income assessable u/s 22 & 23 of the Act. It is noted that the AO had relied upon the decisions of ITO Vs Chem Mech (P) Ltd (83 ITD 427) and ACIT Vs Om Prakash & Co. (2 SOT 1) to justify the estimation at 8.5% of value of inventory. The Ld. AR contended that the AO’s action of estimating rent at 8.5% of the value of inventory was arbitrary, without any basis and highly excessive. The Ld. AR brought to our notice the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case CIT Vs. Tip top…

ACIT -CC -4(2), MUMBAI vs. CHALET HOTELS LTD. (AS A SUCCESSOR TO M/S. MAGNA DISTRIBUTION PVT. LTD.), MUMBAI

ITA 2510/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2505/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2507/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2510/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2511/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2513/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Acit, Central Circle-4(2) बिधम/ M/S. Chalet Hotels Ltd Room No. 1918, 19Th Floor, (As A M/S. Magna Vs. Air India Building, Nariman Distribution & Point, Mumbai-400021. Warehousing Pvt. Ltd.) Plot No. C-30 Raheja Tower, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No.Aaack0411E आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1754/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1755/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1756/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Genext Hardware & Parks बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-4(2) Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 1918, Air India Vs. Raheja Tower, Plot No. C- Building, Nariman Point, 30, Oppo. Sidbi, Bandra Mumbai-400021. Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaccg5567F

Section 132Section 14ASection 69C

…) to that extent is reversed. 43. The next question before us is the manner of computation of ALV for arriving at the notional rental income assessable u/s 22 & 23 of the Act. It is noted that the AO had relied upon the decisions of ITO Vs Chem Mech (P) Ltd (83 ITD 427) and ACIT Vs Om Prakash & Co. (2 SOT 1) to justify the estimation at 8.5% of value of inventory. The Ld. AR contended that the AO’s action of estimating rent at 8.5% of the value of inventory was arbitrary, without any basis and highly excessive. The Ld. AR brought to our notice the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case CIT Vs. Tip top…

ACIT CENTRAL CIR -4(2), MUMBAI vs. CHALET HOTELS LTD. (AS A SUCESSOR TO MAGNA DISTRIBUTION & WAREHOUSING PVT. LTD) , MUMBAI

ITA 2507/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2505/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2507/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2510/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2511/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2513/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Acit, Central Circle-4(2) बिधम/ M/S. Chalet Hotels Ltd Room No. 1918, 19Th Floor, (As A M/S. Magna Vs. Air India Building, Nariman Distribution & Point, Mumbai-400021. Warehousing Pvt. Ltd.) Plot No. C-30 Raheja Tower, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No.Aaack0411E आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1754/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1755/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1756/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Genext Hardware & Parks बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-4(2) Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 1918, Air India Vs. Raheja Tower, Plot No. C- Building, Nariman Point, 30, Oppo. Sidbi, Bandra Mumbai-400021. Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaccg5567F

Section 132Section 14ASection 69C

…) to that extent is reversed. 43. The next question before us is the manner of computation of ALV for arriving at the notional rental income assessable u/s 22 & 23 of the Act. It is noted that the AO had relied upon the decisions of ITO Vs Chem Mech (P) Ltd (83 ITD 427) and ACIT Vs Om Prakash & Co. (2 SOT 1) to justify the estimation at 8.5% of value of inventory. The Ld. AR contended that the AO’s action of estimating rent at 8.5% of the value of inventory was arbitrary, without any basis and highly excessive. The Ld. AR brought to our notice the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case CIT Vs. Tip top…

ACIT -CC- 4(2), MUMBAI vs. CHALET HOTELS LTD. (AS A SUCCESSOR TO M/S.MAGNA DISTRIBUTION & WAREHOUSING PVT. LTD.), MUMBAI

ITA 2505/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2505/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2507/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2510/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2511/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2513/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Acit, Central Circle-4(2) बिधम/ M/S. Chalet Hotels Ltd Room No. 1918, 19Th Floor, (As A M/S. Magna Vs. Air India Building, Nariman Distribution & Point, Mumbai-400021. Warehousing Pvt. Ltd.) Plot No. C-30 Raheja Tower, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No.Aaack0411E आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1754/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1755/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1756/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Genext Hardware & Parks बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-4(2) Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 1918, Air India Vs. Raheja Tower, Plot No. C- Building, Nariman Point, 30, Oppo. Sidbi, Bandra Mumbai-400021. Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaccg5567F

Section 132Section 14ASection 69C

…) to that extent is reversed. 43. The next question before us is the manner of computation of ALV for arriving at the notional rental income assessable u/s 22 & 23 of the Act. It is noted that the AO had relied upon the decisions of ITO Vs Chem Mech (P) Ltd (83 ITD 427) and ACIT Vs Om Prakash & Co. (2 SOT 1) to justify the estimation at 8.5% of value of inventory. The Ld. AR contended that the AO’s action of estimating rent at 8.5% of the value of inventory was arbitrary, without any basis and highly excessive. The Ld. AR brought to our notice the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case CIT Vs. Tip top…

CHALET HOTELS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(2), MUMBAI

ITA 1401/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2505/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2507/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2510/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2511/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2513/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Acit, Central Circle-4(2) बिधम/ M/S. Chalet Hotels Ltd Room No. 1918, 19Th Floor, (As A M/S. Magna Vs. Air India Building, Nariman Distribution & Point, Mumbai-400021. Warehousing Pvt. Ltd.) Plot No. C-30 Raheja Tower, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No.Aaack0411E आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1754/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1755/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1756/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Genext Hardware & Parks बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-4(2) Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 1918, Air India Vs. Raheja Tower, Plot No. C- Building, Nariman Point, 30, Oppo. Sidbi, Bandra Mumbai-400021. Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaccg5567F

Section 132Section 14ASection 69C

…) to that extent is reversed. 43. The next question before us is the manner of computation of ALV for arriving at the notional rental income assessable u/s 22 & 23 of the Act. It is noted that the AO had relied upon the decisions of ITO Vs Chem Mech (P) Ltd (83 ITD 427) and ACIT Vs Om Prakash & Co. (2 SOT 1) to justify the estimation at 8.5% of value of inventory. The Ld. AR contended that the AO’s action of estimating rent at 8.5% of the value of inventory was arbitrary, without any basis and highly excessive. The Ld. AR brought to our notice the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case CIT Vs. Tip top…

CHALET HOTELS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT,CC-4(2), MUMBAI

ITA 1400/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2505/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2507/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2510/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2511/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2513/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Acit, Central Circle-4(2) बिधम/ M/S. Chalet Hotels Ltd Room No. 1918, 19Th Floor, (As A M/S. Magna Vs. Air India Building, Nariman Distribution & Point, Mumbai-400021. Warehousing Pvt. Ltd.) Plot No. C-30 Raheja Tower, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No.Aaack0411E आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1754/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1755/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1756/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Genext Hardware & Parks बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-4(2) Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 1918, Air India Vs. Raheja Tower, Plot No. C- Building, Nariman Point, 30, Oppo. Sidbi, Bandra Mumbai-400021. Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaccg5567F

Section 132Section 14ASection 69C

…) to that extent is reversed. 43. The next question before us is the manner of computation of ALV for arriving at the notional rental income assessable u/s 22 & 23 of the Act. It is noted that the AO had relied upon the decisions of ITO Vs Chem Mech (P) Ltd (83 ITD 427) and ACIT Vs Om Prakash & Co. (2 SOT 1) to justify the estimation at 8.5% of value of inventory. The Ld. AR contended that the AO’s action of estimating rent at 8.5% of the value of inventory was arbitrary, without any basis and highly excessive. The Ld. AR brought to our notice the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case CIT Vs. Tip top…

VINAY BHASIN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 61(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 164/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2016-17]

Section 23Section 23(1)(a)Section 23(4)

…1)(a) of the Act with respect to all the other three properties. While doing so the Assessing Officer had taken support of the case laws such as I. Commissioner of Income Tax vs Smt. Bhagwati Devi (2008) 298 ITR 413 (Jharkhand) II. ITO vs Chem. Mech. P. Ltd. 83 ITD 427, Mumbai ITAT, b-Bench III. Smt. Radha Devi Dalmia vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (1980) 125 ITR 134 Allahabad High Court IV. Susham Singla vs. Commissioner of Income Tax P & H High Court 3.1. In the absence of any calculation of annual let able value of the property submitted by the assessee the Assessing Officer had considered the ALV of the pro…

NITIN RAJ MARWAH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 8(20), MUMBAI

ITA 19/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharshi () & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal () Nitin Raj Marwah Vs Dcit-10(2)(2), Ayakar Bhavan 8Th Floor, Marwah Centre Maharshi Karve Road Krishanlal Marwah Marg Mumbai-400 020 Andheri (East) Mumbai-400 072 Pan : Aabpm2959 Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 23(1)Section 24Section 250

…by any evidence, it amounted to double exemption and thereby Assessing Officer proceeded to hold that the London property is deemed to be let out for which the annual value of property was calculated relying on the decision of ITO vs Chem Mech Pvt Ltd (2002) 83 ITD 427 (Mum) wherein the standard rent under Bombay Rent Act was calculated by taking the interest rate @8.5% on the total investment in the property and since the said decision pertained to the year 2002 the present interest rate was to be calculated @10% of the property value taken as gross annual value for the purpose of section 23(1) of the Act and t…

DCIT ,CC- 8(4), MUMBAI vs. ASHOK R. RUIA (HUF), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6309/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Shailja Rai
Section 132

…hat the undisclosed income is to be quantified at Rs. 14.74 lakhs." 12.18 For the proposition that a seized document should be read as a whole, reference may be made to the following Authorities- Asstt. CIT v Omprakash & Co. [2003] 132 Taxman 99 (Mag.)1[2004] 2 SOT 1 (Mum); Vivek Kumar Kathotia v. Dy. CIT [2013] 32 taxniann.com 3311142 lTD 394 (Kol.- Trib.); CIT v. D.D. Gears Ltd. [2012] 25 taxmann.coni 5621211 Taxman 8 (DeThi)(Mag.). 12.19 To sum up, the seized document should be read as a whole if it has to be relied upon. It cannot be read only to the extent it is advantageous to the revenue and not read when…

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S ROHAN DEVELOPERS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4060/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodassessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Gosh, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat, D.R
Section 132(1)Section 153A

…and after referring to the Hon’ble Apex Court decision in the case of Dr. Dalveer Singh 152 ITR 388(SC) in which the ALV based on return on investment was estimated at 7.5% to 8.5% of the cost. Similarly, the AO referred to the decision of Chem Mech Pvt. Ltd. 83 ITD 427 (Bom.) and finally concluded that 8.5% of the total value of the property is the reasonable expected rent within the meaning of section 23(1) of the Act and accordingly, determined the deemed rent at Rs.16,00,597/- and after allowing standard deduction of Rs.4,80,180/-, deemed income from house property was estimated at Rs.11,20,417/- and added to…

ROHAN DEVELOPERS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3801/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodassessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Gosh, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat, D.R
Section 132(1)Section 153A

…and after referring to the Hon’ble Apex Court decision in the case of Dr. Dalveer Singh 152 ITR 388(SC) in which the ALV based on return on investment was estimated at 7.5% to 8.5% of the cost. Similarly, the AO referred to the decision of Chem Mech Pvt. Ltd. 83 ITD 427 (Bom.) and finally concluded that 8.5% of the total value of the property is the reasonable expected rent within the meaning of section 23(1) of the Act and accordingly, determined the deemed rent at Rs.16,00,597/- and after allowing standard deduction of Rs.4,80,180/-, deemed income from house property was estimated at Rs.11,20,417/- and added to…

DIMPLE ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result this appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5269/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2021AY 2015-16
Section 143(2)Section 23(5)Section 270Section 270A

…the annual value is arrived at by estimating the same @8.5% of the cost of construction of the property. This position has also been upheld by the Mumbai Tribunal in the following cases: a) M/s. Om Prakash & Co. (87 TTJ 183 Mum) and b) M/s. ChemMech(P) Ltd. (83 ITD 427 Mum) 7. Upon assessee’s appeal Ld.CIT (A) referred to Delhi High Court decision in the case of Ansal Housing Finance and Leasing Company Ltd (supra) and found the same to be applicable on the facts of the case. He further noted that as submitted assessee itself section 23(5) amendment is prospective. Learned CIT(A) further observed as under :- 5…

FILMKRAFT PRODUCTIONS (I) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 16(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee for Assessment Year 2011-12 & 2012-13 are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 5183/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Gubgotra, D.R

…mation of ALV @Rs.77,75,567/- is not at all on higher side or unreasonable. Such finding of Assessing Officer get support from decision of Hon'ble ITAT in case of EMTICI Engineering Ltd. vs. ACIT(1991) 58 TTJ 27 (Ahmedabad)., ITO vs. Chem Mech Pvt. Ltd.(2002) 83 ITD 427 (Mum.)(ITAT) and Shri Bipinbhai Vadilal Family Trust No.1 vs. CIT (1994) 208 ITR 1005(Guj.). It is seen that same issue on same facts was there in the case of appellant for A.Y. 2011-12 & A.Y. 2012-13 which has been decided against the assessee by my Ld. Predecessor. However, in the appellant's case for A.Y. 2013-14 the Ld. ClT(A)-7, Mumbai decide…

HAWARE INFOTECH LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 281/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ravish Soodita Nos.281 & 291/Mum/2018 (Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Haware Infotech Ltd. Acit- Central Circle-4(2) 413/416 Vardhaman Market Air India Building, 19Th Floor, Sector 17, Dbc, Vashi, Vs. Nariman Point, Navi Mumbai – 400 705 Mumbai – 400 021

For Appellant: Shri Ruturaj H. Gurjar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…P a g e | 1 ITA Nos. 281 & 291/Mum/2018 A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Haware Infotech Ltd. Vs. ACIT, CC-4(2) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri Shamim Yahya, Accountant Member and Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member ITA Nos.281 & 291/Mum/2018 (Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Haware Infotech Ltd. ACIT- Central Circle-4(2) 413/416 Vardhaman Market Air India Building, 19th Floor, Sector 17, DBC, Vashi, Vs. Nariman Point, Navi Mumbai – 400 705 Mumbai – 400 021 PAN – AABCH1613G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Ruturaj H. Gurjar, A.R Respondent by: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, D.…

Showing 1–20 of 27 · Page 1 of 2