ITO v. Gopichand Godhwani

1 SOT 374Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2005#14674 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Judgments citing ITO v. Gopichand Godhwani

PADAM CHAND GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 35(1), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 7418/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Padam Chand Gupta, Vs. Assistant Commissioner 1-C Court Road Civil Lines Of Income Tax, Income Tax Delhi 110054 Circle 35(1) New Delhi Pan No. Aanpg5120C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 23

…n Didwania Vs. ACIT (supra), Hon'ble Tribunal has held as under: "3. We have heard the parties. The Ld. Counsel placed his reliance on the decision of the ITAT in the case of Sharmila Tagore vs. JCIT 93 TTJ 483 and in the case of ITO vs. Gopichand P. Godwani 1 SOT 374 (Mum). The Ld. D.R. placed reliance on the orders of the authorities below. We find that the assessee's claim is covered by the decision of the ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Sharmila Tagore (supra) in the said case it is held that the maintenance charges paid by the assessee have to be deducted even determining the annual value of the property u/s.2…

TRANSMARINE CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - 17 (3), MUMBAI

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

ITA 7001/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Oct 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaletransmarine Corporation Acit – 17(3) बनाम/ 15, Dubash House, J.N. Mumbai. Vs. Heredia Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aafft6088G .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwarlFor Respondent: Shri Amit Pratap Singh, CIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 23Section 23(1)(b)Section 24

…2010, dated 15.02.2012), Mum Trib. 4. Krishna Bhojwani Vs. ACIT (ITA No. 1463/Mum/2012, dated July 3, 2017). 5. Sharmial Tagore Vs. JCIT (150 Taxman 4) Mum. Mag. ITA No.7001 /Mum/2018 M/s. Transmarine Corporation, Mumbai. 6. ITO Vs. Gopichand P. Godhwani (1 SOT 374) Mum Trib”. 7. We find in the case of CIT Vs. RJ Woods P. Ltd (supra) the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has observed as under: “Section 22 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Income from house property - Chargeable as -Assessment years 1996- 97 to 2000-01 - In respect of premises leased out by assessee, maintenance and other charges paid by assessee were to…

ACIT 23(3), MUMBAI vs. SHAILAJA S. HEMDEV, MUMBAI

ITA 2926/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Smt. Shailaja S. Hemdev 11/12Th Income Tax-23(3) Floor, Blair Room No.104, 1St Floor Apartments, Dr. Amberjkar Matru Mandir, Road, Bandra (W) Mumbai Mumbai – 400 050 Pan/Gir No.Abbph2668D (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 23Section 23(1)(a)Section 23(1)(b)Section 24Section 54

…well as coordinate bench : i) Aloo Bejan Daver Vs. ITO, ITA No.2381/M/10 ii) CIT vs. R.J.Wood P.Ltd. (20 taxmann.com 599)(Del HC) iii) Sharmila Tagore Vs. JCIT(150 Taxman 4); iv) Realty Finance & Leasing Pvt. Ltd. (5 SOT 3448); v) ITO Vs. Gopichand Godhwani (1 SOT 374) vi) Varma Family Trust (7 ITD 392); and vii) Bombay Oil Industries Vs. DCIT (82 ITD 626) wherein it has been held that maintenance charges is deductible while computing annual value under the head income from house property. Respectfully following the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, we direct the AO to allow maintenance charges while computing…

SHAILAJA S. HEMDEV,MUMBAI vs. JCIT RG 19(3), MUMBAI

ITA 531/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jun 2017AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha-DR

Section 143(3)Section 23(2)Section 254(1)

RANJEET D VASWANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 12(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3481/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Mr. Vimal Punmiya, ARFor Respondent: Ms. R.M. Madhavi, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 23

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ranjeet D Vaswani Vs. The ACIT-12(3) 121 Maker Chambers, VI, Mumbai Nariman Point Mumbai-400021 AAEPV1835C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Mr. Vimal Punmiya, AR Revenue by: Ms. R.M. Madhavi, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 1/12/2016,10/03/2017 & 24/03/2017 Date of pronouncement: 19/04/2017 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM This is an appeal filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment year is 2009-10. The appeal is directed against the orde…

DHANO B VASWANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 12(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 3480/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, ARFor Respondent: Ms. R.M. Madhavi, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 23

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Dhano B Vaswani Vs. The ACIT-12(3) 121 Maker Chambers, VI, Mumbai Nariman Point Mumbai-400021 AAEPV1833E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Vimal Punmiya, AR Revenue by: Ms. R.M. Madhavi, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 1/12/2016,10/03/2017 & 24/03/2017 Date of pronouncement: 19/04/2017 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM This is an appeal filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment year is 2009-10. The appeal is directed against the orde…