Kamal Mishra v. ITO

20 SOT 69Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2008#23449 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,631 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 1150Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 23Section 24Section 250

Judgments citing Kamal Mishra v. ITO

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. A S Cargo Movers Private Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and assessee are decided as under:-

ITA 1796/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1688 /Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2015-16 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1796 /Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2017-18 Assistant Commissioner Of Income A.S.Cargo Movers Private Limited, Tax, New No.173, Old No.103, 9Th Floor B Corporate Circle-1(1), Block, Navins Presidium, Chennai. Nelson Manickam Road, Aminjikarai, Chennai-600 029. [Pan: Aaaca7739D] आयकर अपील सं./Co No.56 /Chny/2024 (Ita No.1688/Chny/2024) निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2015-16 A.S.Cargo Movers Private Limited, Assistant Commissioner Of Income New No.173, Old No.103, 9Th Floor B Tax, Block, Navins Presidium, Corporate Circle-1(1), Nelson Manickam Road, Chennai. Aminjikarai, Chennai-600 029. [Pan: Aaaca7739D] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri N.Quadir Hoseyn, Advocate & Dr.L.Natarajan, Ca. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri K.N.Dhandapani, Cit सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2024 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.01.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri N.Quadir Hoseyn, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri K.N.Dhandapani, CIT
Section 250

…of any plausible reasoning. The Ld. CIT(A) noted that as per the scheme of the act, deduction u/s 23 / 24 of the act would available even if the property was vacant. For the purpose he placed reliance upon the decision in the case of Smt.Poonam Sawhney (2008) 20 SOT 69 Delhi and Premsudha Exports Pvt Ltd 17 SOT 293 (110 ITD 158) of Hon’ble ITAT Mumbai. It is trite law that the words “property is let out” in the statute does not corresponds to actual letting out of the property. We therefore do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. First Appellate Authority. Accordingly, the order of the Ld. First Appella…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai vs. A S Cargo Movers Private Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and assessee are decided as under:-

ITA 1688/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1688 /Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2015-16 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1796 /Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2017-18 Assistant Commissioner Of Income A.S.Cargo Movers Private Limited, Tax, New No.173, Old No.103, 9Th Floor B Corporate Circle-1(1), Block, Navins Presidium, Chennai. Nelson Manickam Road, Aminjikarai, Chennai-600 029. [Pan: Aaaca7739D] आयकर अपील सं./Co No.56 /Chny/2024 (Ita No.1688/Chny/2024) निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2015-16 A.S.Cargo Movers Private Limited, Assistant Commissioner Of Income New No.173, Old No.103, 9Th Floor B Tax, Block, Navins Presidium, Corporate Circle-1(1), Nelson Manickam Road, Chennai. Aminjikarai, Chennai-600 029. [Pan: Aaaca7739D] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri N.Quadir Hoseyn, Advocate & Dr.L.Natarajan, Ca. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri K.N.Dhandapani, Cit सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2024 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.01.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri N.Quadir Hoseyn, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri K.N.Dhandapani, CIT
Section 250

…of any plausible reasoning. The Ld. CIT(A) noted that as per the scheme of the act, deduction u/s 23 / 24 of the act would available even if the property was vacant. For the purpose he placed reliance upon the decision in the case of Smt.Poonam Sawhney (2008) 20 SOT 69 Delhi and Premsudha Exports Pvt Ltd 17 SOT 293 (110 ITD 158) of Hon’ble ITAT Mumbai. It is trite law that the words “property is let out” in the statute does not corresponds to actual letting out of the property. We therefore do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. First Appellate Authority. Accordingly, the order of the Ld. First Appella…

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

…which is apparent in the instant case, with evidence being led to exhibit the efforts toward the same. Reliance is also placed on a number of decisions by the tribunal, viz, Kamal Mishra vs. ITO [2008] 19 SOT 251 (Del- Trib); Smt. Poonam Sawhney vs. AO [2008] 20 SOT 69 (Del.); Asst. CIT vs. Dr. Prabha Sanghi [2012] 139 ITD 504 (Del); DLF Office Developers vs. Asst. CIT [2008] 23 SOT 19 (Del); Indu Chandra vs. Dy. CIT (in ITA No. 96/2011 (Luck.); Shakuntala Devi vs. Dy. DIT (in ITA No. 1524/Bang/2010 dated 20.12.2011); 5 Sharan Hospitality Private Limited vs. Dy. CIT Aryabhata Properties Ltd. vs. Asst. CIT (in IT…

Kamal Mishra v. ITO (20 SOT 69) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax