What is Karnani Properties Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Income from services rendered by an assessee to its tenants, carried on continuously in an organized manner with a view to earn profit, constitutes business income. The rule of res judicata does not apply to taxation proceedings, and the Tribunal is the final fact-finding authority.

How many judgments cite Karnani Properties Ltd. v. CIT?

43 judgments on BharatTax cite Karnani Properties Ltd. v. CIT (82 ITR 547), spanning 2012 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Karnani Properties Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 1961, Section 131 of the Income Tax Act, Section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, Section 276CC of the Income Tax Act, Section 68 of the Income Tax Act.

Karnani Properties Ltd. v. CIT (82 ITR 547)

ACIT, Chennai vs. Ambattur Infra Developers, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 376/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.195 & 196/Chny/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2012-13. Ambattur Infra Developers, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No.86, E-2, Industrial Estate, Income Tax, Ambattur, Business Circle Xiii, Chennai 600 058 Chennai.

For Appellant: Shri. T. Banusekar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. N. Gopikrishna, IRS, JCIT

Section 194I

…CIT(A) was not fully appreciative of the 4. above contentions. According to him, by virtue of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of East India Housing & Land Development Trust Limited, (1961) 42 ITR 49, Karnani Properties Limited vs. CIT, (1971) 82 ITR 547 and S.G. Mercantile Corporation Private Limited vs. CIT, (1972) 83 ITR 700, even if the object of an assessee was to promote and develop a market on his landed property, income therefrom would be assessable under the head ‘’income from house property’’. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shambhu Invest…

Ambattur Infra Developers, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 196/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.195 & 196/Chny/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2012-13. Ambattur Infra Developers, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No.86, E-2, Industrial Estate, Income Tax, Ambattur, Business Circle Xiii, Chennai 600 058 Chennai.

For Appellant: Shri. T. Banusekar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. N. Gopikrishna, IRS, JCIT

Section 194I

…CIT(A) was not fully appreciative of the 4. above contentions. According to him, by virtue of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of East India Housing & Land Development Trust Limited, (1961) 42 ITR 49, Karnani Properties Limited vs. CIT, (1971) 82 ITR 547 and S.G. Mercantile Corporation Private Limited vs. CIT, (1972) 83 ITR 700, even if the object of an assessee was to promote and develop a market on his landed property, income therefrom would be assessable under the head ‘’income from house property’’. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shambhu Invest…

Ambattur Infra Developers, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 195/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.195 & 196/Chny/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2012-13. Ambattur Infra Developers, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No.86, E-2, Industrial Estate, Income Tax, Ambattur, Business Circle Xiii, Chennai 600 058 Chennai.

For Appellant: Shri. T. Banusekar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. N. Gopikrishna, IRS, JCIT

Section 194I

…CIT(A) was not fully appreciative of the 4. above contentions. According to him, by virtue of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of East India Housing & Land Development Trust Limited, (1961) 42 ITR 49, Karnani Properties Limited vs. CIT, (1971) 82 ITR 547 and S.G. Mercantile Corporation Private Limited vs. CIT, (1972) 83 ITR 700, even if the object of an assessee was to promote and develop a market on his landed property, income therefrom would be assessable under the head ‘’income from house property’’. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shambhu Invest…

DCIT, Circle - 7(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Dhanuka Ventures Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1413/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1413/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Dcit, Circle-7(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Dhanuka Ventures Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcm 7883 K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A. Bhattacharjee, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, FCA

Section 143(3)

…ed activities undoubtedly constitute ingredients of an organized business 3 4 M/s Dhanuka Ventures Pvt. Ltd. A.Yr. 2012-13 venture. The assessee placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Karnani Properties Ltd vs CIT reported in 82 ITR 547 (SC). 5.1. In addition to the above, it was pleaded that rental income pre-supposes existence of an owner – tenant relationship between the receiver and the payer of the rent. One of the principal characteristics of such relationship is that the tenant must enjoy tenancy rights, which he acquires the moment he becomes a tenant. Section 55(2)(a) o…

DCIT, Cir-6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S India City Properties Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 1185/KOL/2015[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2017AY 2011-2012

Section 23

…ts under the head “house property” along with the rent treating it to be composite instead of “business income”. The Ld. IAC after giving due consideration of facts and referring to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Karnani Properties Ltd. vs CIT (82 ITR 547) held that the rental income simplicitor is assessable under the head “House Property” but service charges received from rendering services in a continuous and organized manner was assessable as “Business Income”. The appellant submitted that the said appellate order of the IAC was accepted to the Department and in all the subsequent assessments w…

DCIT, Cir-6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S India City Properties Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 1184/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2017AY 2010-2011

Section 23

…ts under the head “house property” along with the rent treating it to be composite instead of “business income”. The Ld. IAC after giving due consideration of facts and referring to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Karnani Properties Ltd. vs CIT (82 ITR 547) held that the rental income simplicitor is assessable under the head “House Property” but service charges received from rendering services in a continuous and organized manner was assessable as “Business Income”. The appellant submitted that the said appellate order of the IAC was accepted to the Department and in all the subsequent assessments w…

DCIT, Cir-6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S India City Properties Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 1183/KOL/2015[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2017AY 2009-2010

Section 23

…ts under the head “house property” along with the rent treating it to be composite instead of “business income”. The Ld. IAC after giving due consideration of facts and referring to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Karnani Properties Ltd. vs CIT (82 ITR 547) held that the rental income simplicitor is assessable under the head “House Property” but service charges received from rendering services in a continuous and organized manner was assessable as “Business Income”. The appellant submitted that the said appellate order of the IAC was accepted to the Department and in all the subsequent assessments w…

DCIT 10(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M S Luvish Projects P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1316/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Prateek Jain &For Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar-Sr. AR

Section 253Section 801A(4)(iii)

…ex its maintenance and providing amenities and facilities therein, thus can not be said to be mere letting out of the property but in our view is a composite business activity. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Karnani Properties Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 547 has laid down the precise tests that are necessary to determine whether the services rendered by an assessee to its tenants/recipients of service, are in the nature of business activities and income generated therefrom assessable as business income, or not. The Hon'ble supreme Court has expressed the view that if the services rendered by the asses…

Asiatic Stores & Soda Fountain, Mumbai vs. ITO 12(3)(3)

In the result, appeal for the Assessment Year 2006-07 is also partly allowed

ITA 398/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay KapadiaFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin

Section 143(3)

…and circumstances, the income earned by the assessee is to be treated as ‘business income’ or it is to be treated as ‘income from house property’. At the outset, we may refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Karnani Properties Ltd., 82 ITR 547 (SC), which lays down certain tests in order to determine whether the services rendered by the assessee to its tenants are in the nature of business activity so as to assess the resultant income as business income or not? One of the essential factors laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court was that in case the services rendered by the assessee are…

Asiatic Stores & Soda Fountain, Mumbai vs. ITO 17(1)(2)

In the result, appeal for the Assessment Year 2006-07 is also partly allowed

ITA 397/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay KapadiaFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin

Section 143(3)

…and circumstances, the income earned by the assessee is to be treated as ‘business income’ or it is to be treated as ‘income from house property’. At the outset, we may refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Karnani Properties Ltd., 82 ITR 547 (SC), which lays down certain tests in order to determine whether the services rendered by the assessee to its tenants are in the nature of business activity so as to assess the resultant income as business income or not? One of the essential factors laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court was that in case the services rendered by the assessee are…

Asiatic Stores & Soda Fountain, Mumbai vs. ITO 17(1)(2)

In the result, appeal for the Assessment Year 2006-07 is also partly allowed

ITA 396/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay KapadiaFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin

Section 143(3)

…and circumstances, the income earned by the assessee is to be treated as ‘business income’ or it is to be treated as ‘income from house property’. At the outset, we may refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Karnani Properties Ltd., 82 ITR 547 (SC), which lays down certain tests in order to determine whether the services rendered by the assessee to its tenants are in the nature of business activity so as to assess the resultant income as business income or not? One of the essential factors laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court was that in case the services rendered by the assessee are…

Asiatic Stores & Soda Fountain, Mumbai vs. ITO 17(1)(2)

In the result, appeal for the Assessment Year 2006-07 is also partly allowed

ITA 395/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay KapadiaFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin

Section 143(3)

…and circumstances, the income earned by the assessee is to be treated as ‘business income’ or it is to be treated as ‘income from house property’. At the outset, we may refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Karnani Properties Ltd., 82 ITR 547 (SC), which lays down certain tests in order to determine whether the services rendered by the assessee to its tenants are in the nature of business activity so as to assess the resultant income as business income or not? One of the essential factors laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court was that in case the services rendered by the assessee are…

Asiatic Stores & Soda Fountain, Mumbai vs. ITO 12(3)(3)

In the result, appeal for the Assessment Year 2006-07 is also partly allowed

ITA 394/MUM/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay KapadiaFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin

Section 143(3)

…and circumstances, the income earned by the assessee is to be treated as ‘business income’ or it is to be treated as ‘income from house property’. At the outset, we may refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Karnani Properties Ltd., 82 ITR 547 (SC), which lays down certain tests in order to determine whether the services rendered by the assessee to its tenants are in the nature of business activity so as to assess the resultant income as business income or not? One of the essential factors laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court was that in case the services rendered by the assessee are…

Banzai Estates P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 4034/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am

Section 143(3)Section 24

…from house property. 6. Hon’ble Supreme Court has also validated the decision of Shambu Investment Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (2003) 263 ITR 143 (SC) and CIT vs. Kanak Investment Pvt. Ltd. [1974] 95 ITR 419 (Calcutta) and also Karani Properties Limited vs. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 547 (SC). Further, Hon’ble Supreme Court has also affirmed the decision of Sultan Bros. (P) Ltd. v. CIT, (1964) 5 SCR 807. They have further distinguished the case law of Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd 373 ITR 673 (SC) and Rayala Corporation (P) Ltd. For this Hon’ble Supreme Court relied on the Karanpura Development Co. Ltd. v. CIT, (1962) 44 IT…

Banzai Estates P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 4454/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am

Section 143(3)Section 24

…from house property. 6. Hon’ble Supreme Court has also validated the decision of Shambu Investment Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (2003) 263 ITR 143 (SC) and CIT vs. Kanak Investment Pvt. Ltd. [1974] 95 ITR 419 (Calcutta) and also Karani Properties Limited vs. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 547 (SC). Further, Hon’ble Supreme Court has also affirmed the decision of Sultan Bros. (P) Ltd. v. CIT, (1964) 5 SCR 807. They have further distinguished the case law of Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd 373 ITR 673 (SC) and Rayala Corporation (P) Ltd. For this Hon’ble Supreme Court relied on the Karanpura Development Co. Ltd. v. CIT, (1962) 44 IT…

Banzai Estates P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 4452/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am

Section 143(3)Section 24

…from house property. 6. Hon’ble Supreme Court has also validated the decision of Shambu Investment Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (2003) 263 ITR 143 (SC) and CIT vs. Kanak Investment Pvt. Ltd. [1974] 95 ITR 419 (Calcutta) and also Karani Properties Limited vs. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 547 (SC). Further, Hon’ble Supreme Court has also affirmed the decision of Sultan Bros. (P) Ltd. v. CIT, (1964) 5 SCR 807. They have further distinguished the case law of Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd 373 ITR 673 (SC) and Rayala Corporation (P) Ltd. For this Hon’ble Supreme Court relied on the Karanpura Development Co. Ltd. v. CIT, (1962) 44 IT…

Sukhsagar Traders P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 8(3)2, Mumbai

ITA 7364/MUM/2010[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2017AY 1999-00

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./7364/Mum/2010,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 1999-2000 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Sukhsagar Traders Private Ltd. Ito-8(3)2 301A, Solaris-I, 72 Saki Vihar Road Aayakar Bhavan, M.K Road Andheri East , Mumbai Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 072. Pan:Aaacs 6165 P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By: Dr. A.K. Nayak- Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से /Assessee By: Dr. Paras Jain सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21/03/2017 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 31.03.2017 लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- अनुसार Challenging The Order Dt.3.8.2010 Of Cit(A), Mumbai The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal. Assessee-Company Filed Its Return Of Income On 31. 01. 1999,Declaring Income Rs.13. 16 Lakhs.Initially Return Was Processed U/S.143(1) Of The Act. Later On Notice U/S.148 Of The Act Was Issued On 27.3.2006 After Recording The Reasons For Re-Opening.The Assessing Officer (Ao)Completed The Assessment U/S.143(3)R.W.S 147 Of The Act,Determining Its Income At Rs. 41.46 Lakhs.

For Appellant: Dr. Paras JainFor Respondent: Dr. A.K. Nayak- DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 147oSection 148Section 2

…आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, मुंबई अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई “ई” खंडपीठ मुंबई खंडपीठ खंडपीठ मेमेमेमे खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“E”Bench Mumbai सव"ी राजे"",लेखा सद"य एवं अमरजीत "सह, "याियक सद"य Before S/Sh.Rajendra,Accountant Member and Amarjit Singh,Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./7364/Mum/2010,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 1999-2000 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Sukhsagar Traders Private Ltd. ITO-8(3)2 301A, Solaris-I, 72 Saki Vihar Road Aayakar Bhavan, M.K Road Andheri East , Mumbai Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 072. PAN:AAACS 6165 P (अपीलाथ" /Appell…

DCIT, Coimbatore vs. Sakthi Sugars Ltd., Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 478/CHNY/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Jan 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.478/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10

Section 143(3)Section 28

…office building along with services of security, lift facilities, water and electricity, telecommunications facilities, common maintenance facility to M/s. ABT Limited for an composite rent of Rs.9,60,000/-. In the case of M/s. Karnani Properties Ltd Vs CIT 82 ITR 547 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that services rendered by the assessee with a said purpose and with a view to earn profits are business activities and taxable u/s.28. The Assessing Officer in an arbitrary manner held that the rental income received by the Company is assessable under the head “Income from House Property” and not as “Income…

Sakthi Sugars Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 430/CHNY/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Jan 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.478/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10

Section 143(3)Section 28

…office building along with services of security, lift facilities, water and electricity, telecommunications facilities, common maintenance facility to M/s. ABT Limited for an composite rent of Rs.9,60,000/-. In the case of M/s. Karnani Properties Ltd Vs CIT 82 ITR 547 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that services rendered by the assessee with a said purpose and with a view to earn profits are business activities and taxable u/s.28. The Assessing Officer in an arbitrary manner held that the rental income received by the Company is assessable under the head “Income from House Property” and not as “Income…

Bombay Plaza Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-5, Kolkata

In the result the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1641/KOL/2014[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Sept 2016AY 2006-2007

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M.Jagtap, Am & Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm ]

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Gupta, FCAFor Respondent: Shri S.M.daws, JCIT, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 22Section 27

…rence was also made to the following judicial pronouncements, wherein principles to be applied for treating income for letting out as to whether to be treated as income from house property or not have been laid down. • Karnani Properties Ltd. -vs;- CIT (1971) 82 ITR 547 (SC)(para 4.1) • CIT -vs.- National Storage (P.) Ltd. (1963) 48 ITR 577 (Born.) • Everest Hotels Limited -vs.- CIT (1978) 114 ITR 779 (Cal.) 8. The Assessee also submitted that an identical issue came up before the Hon'ble ITAT Kolkata in the case of Assessee's group concern, namely Oberoi Building & Investment Pvt Ltd for A.Y.2005-06 wherein t…

Karnani Properties Ltd. v. CIT

What is Karnani Properties Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Karnani Properties Ltd. v. CIT

ACIT, Chennai vs. Ambattur Infra Developers, Chennai

Ambattur Infra Developers, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

Ambattur Infra Developers, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

DCIT, Circle - 7(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Dhanuka Ventures Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

DCIT, Cir-6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S India City Properties Ltd., Kolkata

DCIT, Cir-6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S India City Properties Ltd., Kolkata

DCIT, Cir-6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S India City Properties Ltd., Kolkata

DCIT 10(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M S Luvish Projects P.Ltd, Mumbai

Asiatic Stores & Soda Fountain, Mumbai vs. ITO 12(3)(3)

Asiatic Stores & Soda Fountain, Mumbai vs. ITO 17(1)(2)

Asiatic Stores & Soda Fountain, Mumbai vs. ITO 17(1)(2)

Asiatic Stores & Soda Fountain, Mumbai vs. ITO 17(1)(2)

Asiatic Stores & Soda Fountain, Mumbai vs. ITO 12(3)(3)

Banzai Estates P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 3(1), Mumbai

Banzai Estates P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 3(1), Mumbai

Banzai Estates P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 3(1), Mumbai

Sukhsagar Traders P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 8(3)2, Mumbai

DCIT, Coimbatore vs. Sakthi Sugars Ltd., Coimbatore

Sakthi Sugars Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Coimbatore

Bombay Plaza Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-5, Kolkata