Mrs. Shiela Kaushish (supra), Dewan Daulat Rai Kapoor (supra) and Dr. Balbir Singh v. MCD

152 ITR 388Supreme Court of India1985#13507 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2021.

Judgments citing Mrs. Shiela Kaushish (supra), Dewan Daulat Rai Kapoor (supra) and Dr. Balbir Singh v. MCD

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S ROHAN DEVELOPERS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4060/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodassessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Gosh, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat, D.R

Section 132(1)Section 153A

…and accordingly a show cause notice was issued which was replied by the assessee. However, the AO noted that WDV as on 31.03.2013 of the said property was Rs.1,88,30,561/- and after referring to the Hon’ble Apex Court decision in the case of Dr. Dalveer Singh 152 ITR 388(SC) in which the ALV based on return on investment was estimated at 7.5% to 8.5% of the cost. Similarly, the AO referred to the decision of Chem Mech Pvt. Ltd. 83 ITD 427 (Bom.) and finally concluded that 8.5% of the total value of the property is the reasonable expected rent within the meaning of section 23(1) of the Act and accordingly, determi…

ROHAN DEVELOPERS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3801/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Gosh, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat, D.R

Section 132(1)Section 153A

VIREN VINI AHUJA,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 8(4), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1855/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri G. Manjunathavirenvini Ahuja Assistant Commissioner Of Bunglow No.1 Income Tax, Central, Circle- Neelkanth Teerth, 8(4), Mumbai-400021. Road No.6,Chembur, Vs. Mumbai-400 071. Pan: Aacpa4809M Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri J.P.Bairagra (Ar) Respondent By : Shri Rajeev Gubgotra (Dr)

For Appellant: Shri J.P.Bairagra (AR)For Respondent: Shri Rajeev Gubgotra (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 23(1)

…s/flats. The working of assessee was not accepted by AO by taking his view that the same is not based on sound footing not supported with documentary evidences. The AO by referring the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Balbir Singh reported 152 ITR 388 wherein it was held that in estimating annual letting value (ALV) return on investment is to be taken, on the basis of 7.5% to 8.5% of the cost of investment. The AO adopted 8.5% of total value of investment as reasonable expected market rent within the meaning of section 23(1). On appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) action of AO was confirmed. Therefor…

HARSH ANANDKUMAR JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR39, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 3891/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.3668 & 3748/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13) Dcit, Cc-6(4) बिधम/ Shri Harsh Jain 82, Maker Chamber Iii, R. No. 1925, 19Th Floor, Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai- Air India Building, 400021. Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021. Ita. Nos. 3891 & 3892/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13) Harsh Anandkumar Jain बिधम/ Acit, Central, Circle 6(4) 82, Makar Chambers Iii Mumbai Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Afbpj0984J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala (Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 25.10.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31.10.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue As Well As Assessee Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-54, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys.2011-12 & 2012-13. Ita. Nos. 3668 & 3748/Mum/2017 3891 & 3892/Mum/2017 A.Ys. 2011-12 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala (AR)For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh (Dr)

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 23(1)(a)Section 24

…property is subject to ITA. Nos. 3668 & 3748/Mum/2017 3891 & 3892/Mum/2017 A.Ys. 2011-12 & 2012-13 the Rent Control Act, the fair rent cannot exceed the standard rent [Mrs. Shiela Kaushish (supra), Dewan Daulat Rai Kapoor (supra) and Dr. Balbir Singh v. MCD 152 ITR 388 (SC)]. In the case of a building subject to Rent Control Legislation, neither the owner can claim to recover from the hypothetical tenant nor can the latter be assumed to be willing to pay to the former anything more than the standard rent. Therefore, the reasonable expectation of the owner of the property must be limited by the measure of the st…

HARSH ANAND JAIN,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 39, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee and Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4242/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Shri Harsh Anand Jain Vs. The Deputy Commissioner 82, Maker Chambers Iii Of Income Tax, Central Nariman Point Circle-39, Room No.32(1), Mumbai – 400 021 Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai - 400020 Pan/Gir No.Afbpj0984J Appellant) .. Respondent) The Deputy Commissioner Vs. Shri Harsh Anand Jain Of Income Tax, Central 82, Maker Chambers Iii Circle-39, Room No.32(1), Nariman Point Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai - 400020 Pan/Gir No.Afbpj0984J Appellant) .. Respondent) Assessee By Shri Anuj Kisnadwala Revenue By Shri Omi Ningshen

Section 143(3)Section 23Section 24

…ol Legislation applicable to the property. It is a settled law that where the property is subject to the Rent Control Act, the fair rent cannot exceed the standard rent [Mrs. Shiela Kaushish (supra), Dewan Daulat Rai Kapoor (supra) and Dr. Balbir Singh v. MCD 152 ITR 388 (SC)]. In the case of a building subject to Rent Control Legislation, neither the owner can claim to recover from the hypothetical tenant nor can the latter be assumed to be willing to pay to the former anything more than the standard rent. Therefore, the reasonable expectation of the owner of the property must be limited by the measure of the st…

ASST CIT 16(2), MUMBAI vs. GOVINDBHAI L. KAKADIA, MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6663/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jun 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2011-12 Acit Cit 16(2), Govindbhai L. Kakadia, 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir, 1001 Prasad Chambers, बनाम/ Tardeo Rd. Opera House, Vs. Mumbai-400007 Tata Rd. No.2 Mumbai-400004 (Revenue) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aftpk4028A Revenue By Shri A. Ramachandran (Dr) Respondent By None (Ar)

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

…as per the Rent Control Act. Refence in this regard is made to: 1. Sheila Kaushish v. CIT [1981] 131 ITR 435 (SC); 2. Amolak Ram Khosla v. CIT [1981] 131 ITR 589 (SC) 3. Dewan Daulat Ram Kapoor v. NDMC [1980] 122 ITR 700(SC) 4. Dr. Balbir Singh v. MCD [1985] 152 ITR 388 (SC) 5. CIT v. Mayur Recreational & Development Ltd.(AIT- 2008-189 ITA-SB); 6. CIT v. Raghubir Salan Charitable Trust 183 ITR 297 - (Delhi); 7. L.Bansidhar & Sons HUF 201 ITR 655 (Delhi) 8. CIT v. Vinay Bharat Ram & Sons (HUF) 261 ITR 632 (Delhi) 2.4.5 In view of the above, and considering the 'without prejudice' pleadings made by the Ld. AR as…

VINOD HARBANSLAL KHETERPAL,THANE vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 46, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2739/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz (Am) & Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm) Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Ms. Usha GopalanFor Respondent: Shri. Vivek Batra

Section 143(3)Section 23(4)(b)Section 24(1)Section 68

…R 134 the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court held that the determination of the annual letting value on the basis of 7% of the investment was a just and a fair method of determining the annual letting value. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Balbir Singh 152 ITR 388 held that in estimating ALV, return on investment is to be taken on the basis of 7.5% to 8.5% of cost. In the case of Chem Mech (P) Ltd. 83 ITD 427, the Hon’ble ITAT, Mumbai held that the ALV has to be determined on the basis of (i) standard rent determined in accordance with the rent control Act (ii) annual municipal value if available (iii) the…