ITO v. Makrupa Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.

108 ITD 95Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2007#8675 most cited

What is ITO v. Makrupa Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. authority for?

The municipal ratable value of a property is not binding on the Assessing Officer (AO) for determining the annual value of house property if the AO can demonstrate that the ratable value does not represent the correct fair rent.

12

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2024.

Also referred to as

ITO v. Makrupa Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. · 108 ITD 95 · municipal ratable value · annual value · fair rent · section 23(1)(a) · income from house property · AO · binding · Supreme Court · High Court

Judgments citing ITO v. Makrupa Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2, Nagpur vs. M/S Sas Developers & Engineers `, Nagpur

In the result, the appeal filed by department is dismissed

ITA 82/NAG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Moriyani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 24

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER ITA No. 82/Nag./2020 (Assessment Year : 2015-16) Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Nagpur-440001 ……………. Appellant v/s M/s. SAS Developers & Engineers, 6th Floor, Landmark, Ramdaspeth, ……………. Respondent Nagpur-440010 PAN – AAEFM7920M Assessee by : Shri Manoj Moriyani, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr.DR Date of Hearing – 18/06/2024 Date of Order – 18/06/2024 O R D E R PER K.M. ROY, A.M. The present appeal has been preferred by the Department chal…

Suman Gupta, Mumbai vs. DCIT - CC- 4(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2015

ITA 3860/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Ita Nos. 3860 & 3859/Mum/2018 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Smt. Suman Gupta, Dy. Cit Cc-4(2), 6Th New Harileela House, Air India Building, 19Th Mint Road, Fort, Vs. Floor, Room No. 1918, Mumbai-400 001. Nariman Point, Mumbai-21. Pan No. Ahqpg 0220 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Bhupendra Karkhanis & Mr. Aakash Marthak & Mr. Vijay Bhatt, Ars Revenue By : Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 02/03/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 27/04/2023 Order

For Appellant: Mr. Bhupendra Karkhanis &For Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

…the property in question. regarding the Municipal value of the property in question. we find that Tribunal in the case of ITO V/s Makrupa Chemicals ITO V/s Makrupa Chemicals we find that Tribunal in the case of (P) Ltd reported in 108 ITD (P) Ltd reported in 108 ITD 95/110 TTJ (MUM)489 95/110 TTJ (MUM)489 after considering the various decisions of Hon’ble High Courts and considering the various decisions of Hon’ble High considering the various decisions of Hon’ble High supreme court held that the municipal ratable value is not binding supreme court held that the municipal ratable value is not binding supreme cou…

Shri Subur Kumar Banerjee, Nagpur vs. A.C.I.T. (OSD) O/O C.I.T.-1, Nagpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 155/NAG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. Moryani, Advocate a/wFor Respondent: Ms. Agnes P. Thomas
Section 24Section 24BSection 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.155/Nag./2017 (Assessment Year : 2011-12) Shri Subir Kumar Banerjee 6th Floor, Landmark, Ramdaspeth ……………. Appellant Nagpur 440 012 PAN – ABRPB9032F v/s Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD) ……………. Respondent O/o Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Nagpur Assessee by : Shri Manoj G. Moryani, Advocate a/w Shri Bhavesh M. Moryani, Advocate Revenue by : Ms. Agnes P. Thomas Date of Hearing – 20.04.2022 Date of Order – 28/04/2022 O R D E R PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M. The p…

M/S. Great Fortune Investments and Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd, Nashik vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1, Nashik

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2325/PUN/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Hon’Ble Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.2325/Pun/2017 निर्ाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Great Fortune Investments & The Assistant Commissioner Of Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax, Shop No.6, Rushiraj Heights, Near Cirlce-1, Nashik. Nmc Water Tank, Parijat Nagar, Mahatma Nagar, Nahik. Pan: Aaccg 6406 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket M Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri S.P.Walimbe - Dr Date Of Hearing 10/02/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 08/04/2022

Section 23Section 23(1)Section 23(1)(a)Section 24

…ken. Where the municipal ratable value of rent is less than actual rent, the actual rent shall be fair rental value for computing income from house property. However, it is the decision of the co-ordinate Bench in the case of Makrupa Chemicals (P) Ltd. (2007) 108 ITD 95/12 SOT 68 (Mum) that the standard rent is the upper limit for determining the annual value. The above synopsis goes well with the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Dewan Daulat Rai Kapoor (supra) and also apex court judgment in the case of Dr. Balbir Singh and others (supra) for the proposition that the ratable value determined by the mun…

Marine Container Services, Mumbai vs. DCIT 12 (2), Mumbai

In the result this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical

ITA 4158/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Marine Container Services, Dy.Cit, Circle-17(2), Room No. 123, 1St Floor, 71, World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400005. Mumbai-20. Pan: Aaafm9838J Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri B.V. Jhaveri (Ar) Respondent By : Shri T.A. Khan (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 16.05.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.08.2018 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh;

For Appellant: Shri B.V. Jhaveri (AR)For Respondent: Shri T.A. Khan (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 23(1)(a)Section 253Section 254(1)

…f municipal valuation. 23. As far as decisions relied upon by the learned D.R. in the case of Baker Technical Services (P) Ltd. (supra), we find that the same is based on the decision of the ITAT Mumbai bench in the case of ITO Vs. Makrupa Chemicals (P) Ltd. 108 ITD 95 (Mumbai). In the case of Makrupa Chemicals, in para-14 of the decision it has been clearly held that rateable value, if correctly determined under the municipal laws can be taken as ALV u/s.23(1)(a) of the Act and in this regard the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sheila Kaushish(supra) has been followed. It has further been o…

Satypal Jaikumar Jain, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 39, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the

ITA 3965/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2010-11 Acit, Satyapal Jaikumar Jain, Cc-39, R. No.32(1), 82, Maker Chambers-Iii, बनाम/ Ground Floor, Nariman Point, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400021 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aabpj1888Q Assessment Year: 2010-11 Satyapal Jaikumar Jain, Acit, 82, Maker Chambers-Iii, Cc-39, R. No.32(1), बनाम/ Nariman Point, Ground Floor, Vs. Mumbai-400021 Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aabpj1888Q

Section 131

…he sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to let out from year to year, therefore, the municipal valuation is not binding upon the Department for determining the reasonable rent, by following the decision in ITO vs Makrupa Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. 108 ITD 95 (Bom.). The ld. Assessing Officer hold that the rateable value adopted by the assessee, as per municipal laws, is not reasonable within the meaning of section 23(1)(a) of the Act. Without going into much deliberation, we find that in the aforesaid case of the assessee itself, the Tribunal, for A.Y. 2009-10, the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed,…

ACIT CC 39, Mumbai vs. Satypal Jain, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the

ITA 3831/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2010-11 Acit, Satyapal Jaikumar Jain, Cc-39, R. No.32(1), 82, Maker Chambers-Iii, बनाम/ Ground Floor, Nariman Point, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400021 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aabpj1888Q Assessment Year: 2010-11 Satyapal Jaikumar Jain, Acit, 82, Maker Chambers-Iii, Cc-39, R. No.32(1), बनाम/ Nariman Point, Ground Floor, Vs. Mumbai-400021 Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aabpj1888Q

Section 131

…he sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to let out from year to year, therefore, the municipal valuation is not binding upon the Department for determining the reasonable rent, by following the decision in ITO vs Makrupa Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. 108 ITD 95 (Bom.). The ld. Assessing Officer hold that the rateable value adopted by the assessee, as per municipal laws, is not reasonable within the meaning of section 23(1)(a) of the Act. Without going into much deliberation, we find that in the aforesaid case of the assessee itself, the Tribunal, for A.Y. 2009-10, the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed,…

Makrupa Chemicals P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 1(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result this appeal by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 4376/MUM/2012[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2017AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Suman Kumar
Section 23(1)(a)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA no.4376/Mum./2012 (Assessment Year: 2002-03) Makrupa Chemicals P. Ltd., New India Centre, 5th Floor, ……………. Appellant 17 Cooperage Road, Mumbai 400039. PAN AAACM2746A v/s ITO 1(2)(3) ……………. Respondent Mumbai 400020 Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri. Suman Kumar Date of Hearing –24.04.2017 Date of Order -26.04.2017 O R D E R PER: SHAMIM YAHYA This appeal by the assessee is directed against order of Ld. CIT-A dated 03.05.2012 and pertains to assessment year 2002-03. 2.…

ACIT 17(2), Mumbai vs. Jagshi J Chheda, Mumbai

In the result, all of the appeals filed by the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6854/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ,J ,मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “J”, MUMBAI "ी अ"मत शु"ला, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी अ"वनी तनेजा, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Amit Shukla, Judicial Member, and Shri Ashwani Taneja, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2008-09 Jagshi J. Chheda, ACIT, 17(2) Prop. Silver Developers, Piramal Chambers बनाम/ 9001, Meru Heights, 268, Mumbai- Vs. Telang Road, Matunga (CR), Mumbai-400019 (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.ACYPC2992B Assessment Year: 2008-09 ACIT, 17(2) Jagshi J. Chheda, Piramal Chambers बनाम/ Prop. Silver Developers, Mumbai- 9001, Meru Heights, 268, Tel…

Jagshi J. Chheda, Mumbai vs. A.C.I.T. Circle - 17(2), Mumbai

In the result, all of the appeals filed by the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6733/MUM/2011[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2016AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ,J ,मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “J”, MUMBAI "ी अ"मत शु"ला, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी अ"वनी तनेजा, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Amit Shukla, Judicial Member, and Shri Ashwani Taneja, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2008-09 Jagshi J. Chheda, ACIT, 17(2) Prop. Silver Developers, Piramal Chambers बनाम/ 9001, Meru Heights, 268, Mumbai- Vs. Telang Road, Matunga (CR), Mumbai-400019 (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.ACYPC2992B Assessment Year: 2008-09 ACIT, 17(2) Jagshi J. Chheda, Piramal Chambers बनाम/ Prop. Silver Developers, Mumbai- 9001, Meru Heights, 268, Tel…

ACIT CC 39, Mumbai vs. Laxmi Satyapal Jain, Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4726/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2016AY 2010-11
Section 143(3)

…he sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to let out from year to year, therefore, the municipal valuation is not binding upon the Department for determining the reasonable rent, by following the decision in ITO vs Makrupa Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. 108 ITD 95 (Bom.). The ld. Assessing Officer hold that the rateable value adopted by the assessee, as per municipal laws, is not reasonable within the meaning of section 23(1)(a) of the Act. Without going into much deliberation, we find that in the aforesaid case of the assessee itself, the Tribunal, for A.Y. 2009-10, the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed,…

D.C.I.T. Cir - 8, Kolkata vs. M/S Patton Developers Pvt Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 90/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2009-10 Dcit, Circle-8, Aayakar V/S. Patton Developers Pvt. Bhawan, 5Th Floor, P-7, Ltd., 3C, Camac Street, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 016 Kolkata-69 [Pan No.Aabct 2076 H] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 24Section 24(1)(vi)

…t only second loan for repayment of original loan. iii) The assessee also relies on the decisions of the following cases: ITA No.90/Kol/2013 A.Y. 2009-10 DCIT Cir-8, Kol. V. M/s Patton Developers Pvt. Ltd. Page 4 (a) ITR vs. Makrupa Chemicals (P) Ltd. (2007) 108 ITD 95 (Mum) (b) ITO vs. Satya Co. Ltd. (1986) 19 ITD 596 (Cal.Tribunal) (c) V. Govindarjulu vs. ITO (1990) 32 ITD 1 (Mad-Trib) “in view of the above submissions, it is prayed that the disallowance of Rs.2,11,44,914 wrongly made by the Ld. A.O may please be deleted.” On the basis of submission made by assessee Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition made by…

ITO v. Makrupa Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. (108 ITD 95) — Cited in 12 Judgments | BharatTax