ITR 143(SC). (ii) Bhoopalam Commercial Complex & Industries (262 ITR 517) (Kar). (iii) CIT v. Sarabhai Pvt. Ltd.

263 ITR 197High Court2003#24221 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Judgments citing ITR 143(SC). (ii) Bhoopalam Commercial Complex & Industries (262 ITR 517) (Kar). (iii) CIT v. Sarabhai Pvt. Ltd.

PANKAJ ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. DY. / ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 41(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

ITA 4365/MUM/2025[2014-015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2025AY 2014-015

For Appellant: Shri S.L. JainFor Respondent: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr.DR

Section 143(2)Section 250

…in facilities, M/S Aditya Birla Minacs\nWorldwide Ltd. itself made the arrangements in the premises for running its\nIT/ITeS business.\n16.\nWe find that the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Commissioner of Income-\ncit vs. Sarabhai (P.) Ltd., reported in [2003] 263 ITR 197 (Guj.), while\ndeciding a similar issue in a case, wherein the assessee, apart from letting\nthe premises on rent, was also providing various services, such as, (i)\nHousekeeping which includes watch and ward, sweepers, maintenance staff\nand liftman, (ii) Canteen facilities, (iii) Internal telephone exchange, (iv)\nMaintenance staff for central…

KAVITA MARKETING P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 5(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4886/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Joginder Singhm/S. Kavita Marketing Pvt. Ltd., C/O. Shri Prakash Jhunjunwala, Chartered Accountant, 5,Jolly Bhawan No.2, Gr. Flr., 7, New Marine Lines,Churchgate, Mumbai 400 020. Pan:Aaack 2103P ... Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: Shri Prakash JhunjhunwalaFor Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad

Section 143(3)

…In support of the submissions that such charges are not taxable under the head “house property income” but under the head “business income” he has relied upon various decisions namely; (i) A.R. Complex vs. ITO, 292 ITR 615(Mad);(ii) CIT vs. Sarabhai (P) Ltd.,263 ITR 197 (Guj); and, (iii) ACIT vs. Vijay S. Mallya, 52 SOT 0197 (URO). 5. On the other hand, Ld. Departmental Representative has supported the stand of the lower authorities by reiterating the arguments contained in the respective orders, which we have already adverted to in the paras above and are not being repeated for the sake of brevity. 6. We have…

M/S SILVER SOFTWARE PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeals for Assessment Years 2010-11 and 2011-12

ITA 1642/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 May 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri Zain Ahmed Khan, C.AFor Respondent: Dr.P.K. Srihari, Addl. CIT (D.R.)

Section 143(3)

…ng to this conclusion, the Assessing Officer relied on the following judicial pronouncements :- (i) Shambu Investments Pvt. Ltd. (2003) 263 ITR 143(SC). (ii) Bhoopalam Commercial Complex & Industries (262 ITR 517) (Kar). (iii) CIT V Sarabhai Pvt. Ltd. (2003) 263 ITR 197 (Guj) (iv) CIT V Poddar Cement Pvt. Ltd. (1997) 226 ITR 625 (SC). 2.2 Aggrieved by the orders of assessment for Assessment Years 2010-11 and 2011-12 dt.15.3.2013 and 5.3.2014 respectively, the assessee preferred appeals before the CIT (Appeals) – III, Bangalore. The learned CIT (Appeals) vide orders dt.30.10.2014 dismissed the assessee's appeal o…