What is Mrs. Shiela Kaushish v. CIT authority for?

Income-tax authorities cannot add notional interest on a tenant's deposit to the income from a house property, as there is no provision for this in Sections 22 or 23 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The annual value of a house property is determined by specific provisions within these sections, and not by hypothetical calculations.

How many judgments cite Mrs. Shiela Kaushish v. CIT?

64 judgments on BharatTax cite Mrs. Shiela Kaushish v. CIT (131 ITR 435), spanning 2011 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Mrs. Shiela Kaushish v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 1961, Section 143(3), Section 131, Section 132, Section 139(1), Section 142(1).

Mrs. Shiela Kaushish v. CIT (131 ITR 435)

Wendy Leslie Pereira, Mumbai vs. ACIT-21(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7369/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Mr. Mandar Vaidya, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Uday Bhaskar Jakke, DR

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

…nded by the assessee that the Revenue was bound to fix the ALV on the basis of Municipal Valuation, unless the same was lower than the actual rent received. The assessee also referred before the AO the decision in the case of M/s Sheila Kaushish v. CIT (1981) 131 ITR 435 (SC) and CIT v. Poddar Bros (P.) Ltd. (1999) 240 ITR 925, 926, 927 (Cal). Thus the assessee submitted that the income from house property has been correctly calculated on the basis of annual ratable value as determined by the Municipal Authority and the actual rent being higher should be adopted for determining the income from house property. Ho…

DCIT 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Naresh Chander Oberoi, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 5565/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Aug 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.1601/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2013-14) & आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5565/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2014-15) Acit – 3(2)(2) Shri Naresh Chander Oberoi, Room No. 674, 6Th Floor, बनाम/ 181 B Jolly Maker Tower A, No.1, 18T H Floor, Cuffe Parade Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Colaba, Mumbai – 400005. Mumbai – 400 020 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaepo-2381-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Revenue By : Ms. Bharti Singh- Ld. Dr Assessee By : Shri Anuj Kisnadwala - Ld.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 05/08/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 09/08/2019 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (): - 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Revenue For Assessment Years [In Short Referred To As ‘Ay’] 2013-14 & 2014-15 Contest The Order Of Ld. First Appellate Authority On Certain Common Grounds Of Appeal & Therefore, Disposed Of By Way Of This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala - Ld.ARFor Respondent: Ms. Bharti Singh- Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 23

…1 Shri Naresh Chander Oberoi Assessment Years :2013-14 & 2014-15 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “बी "ायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI माननीय "ी महावीर िसंह, "ाियक सद" एवं माननीय "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल ,लेखा सद" के सम"। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.1601/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2013-14) & आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5565/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2014-15) ACIT – 3(2)(2) Shri Naresh Chander Oberoi, Room No. 674, 6th Floor, बनाम/ 181 B Jolly Maker Tower A, No.1, 18t h Floor, Cuffe Parade Aayka…

ACIT 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Naresh Chander Oberoi, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1601/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.1601/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2013-14) & आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5565/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2014-15) Acit – 3(2)(2) Shri Naresh Chander Oberoi, Room No. 674, 6Th Floor, बनाम/ 181 B Jolly Maker Tower A, No.1, 18T H Floor, Cuffe Parade Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Colaba, Mumbai – 400005. Mumbai – 400 020 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaepo-2381-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Revenue By : Ms. Bharti Singh- Ld. Dr Assessee By : Shri Anuj Kisnadwala - Ld.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 05/08/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 09/08/2019 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (): - 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Revenue For Assessment Years [In Short Referred To As ‘Ay’] 2013-14 & 2014-15 Contest The Order Of Ld. First Appellate Authority On Certain Common Grounds Of Appeal & Therefore, Disposed Of By Way Of This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala - Ld.ARFor Respondent: Ms. Bharti Singh- Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 23

…1 Shri Naresh Chander Oberoi Assessment Years :2013-14 & 2014-15 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “बी "ायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI माननीय "ी महावीर िसंह, "ाियक सद" एवं माननीय "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल ,लेखा सद" के सम"। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.1601/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2013-14) & आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5565/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2014-15) ACIT – 3(2)(2) Shri Naresh Chander Oberoi, Room No. 674, 6th Floor, बनाम/ 181 B Jolly Maker Tower A, No.1, 18t h Floor, Cuffe Parade Aayka…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-3-2, Jaipur vs. Silver Sand Builders Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, all the three appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1242/JPR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (CA) &For Respondent: Smt. Neena Jeph (JCIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

…udicial precedents on this issue wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a series of decisions has held that the standard rent of the property is a relevant criteria and basis for determination of the annual letting value. In case of Mrs. Sheela Kaushik vs. CIT, 131 ITR 435 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that for determination of annual value standard rent should be the basis and the annual rent received by the landlord is not relevant. Further, in case of Deewan Daulat Rai Kapoor vs. NDMC, 122 ITR 700 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has again while deciding the issue of computation of rateable value of th…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-3-2, Jaipur vs. Silver Sand Builders Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, all the three appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1241/JPR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (CA) &For Respondent: Smt. Neena Jeph (JCIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

…udicial precedents on this issue wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a series of decisions has held that the standard rent of the property is a relevant criteria and basis for determination of the annual letting value. In case of Mrs. Sheela Kaushik vs. CIT, 131 ITR 435 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that for determination of annual value standard rent should be the basis and the annual rent received by the landlord is not relevant. Further, in case of Deewan Daulat Rai Kapoor vs. NDMC, 122 ITR 700 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has again while deciding the issue of computation of rateable value of th…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-3-2, Jaipur vs. Silver Sand Builders Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, all the three appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1240/JPR/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Aug 2019AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (CA) &For Respondent: Smt. Neena Jeph (JCIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

…udicial precedents on this issue wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a series of decisions has held that the standard rent of the property is a relevant criteria and basis for determination of the annual letting value. In case of Mrs. Sheela Kaushik vs. CIT, 131 ITR 435 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that for determination of annual value standard rent should be the basis and the annual rent received by the landlord is not relevant. Further, in case of Deewan Daulat Rai Kapoor vs. NDMC, 122 ITR 700 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has again while deciding the issue of computation of rateable value of th…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Moni Kumar Subba, New Delhi

In the result ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4038/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Oct 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit, Vs. Sh. Moni Kumar Subba, Central Circle-4, New Delhi Subba Farm House, 118, Village Sultanpur, Mehrauli, Gurgaon Road, Delhi Pan :Aasps1484J (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri. Moni Kumar Subba, Vs. Acit, Subba Farm House, 118, Central Circle-4, E-2, Ara Village Sultanpur, Mehrauli, Centre, Jhandewalan Extn., Gurgaon Road, Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aasps1484J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(47)Section 23Section 23(1)

…he issue in dispute and following decision of his predecessor in assessment year 2003-04, observed that the Assessing Officer has a mandate to assess fair rent under section 23 of the Act in the light of the decisions in the case of M/s Sheila Kaushik Vs. CIT 131 ITR 435 (SC) and CIT Vs. Satya Co. Ltd. 75 Taxman 193 (Kolkatta). The Assessing Officer observed that the Municipal Authorities were required to take into consideration the interest-free deposit while working out the standard rent, however, in the case of the assessee, same was not brought to the knowledge of the Municipal Authorities and accordingly eff…

Moni Kumar Subba, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3982/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Oct 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit, Vs. Sh. Moni Kumar Subba, Central Circle-4, New Delhi Subba Farm House, 118, Village Sultanpur, Mehrauli, Gurgaon Road, Delhi Pan :Aasps1484J (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri. Moni Kumar Subba, Vs. Acit, Subba Farm House, 118, Central Circle-4, E-2, Ara Village Sultanpur, Mehrauli, Centre, Jhandewalan Extn., Gurgaon Road, Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aasps1484J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(47)Section 23Section 23(1)

…he issue in dispute and following decision of his predecessor in assessment year 2003-04, observed that the Assessing Officer has a mandate to assess fair rent under section 23 of the Act in the light of the decisions in the case of M/s Sheila Kaushik Vs. CIT 131 ITR 435 (SC) and CIT Vs. Satya Co. Ltd. 75 Taxman 193 (Kolkatta). The Assessing Officer observed that the Municipal Authorities were required to take into consideration the interest-free deposit while working out the standard rent, however, in the case of the assessee, same was not brought to the knowledge of the Municipal Authorities and accordingly eff…

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)

…ontainer Services Honourable Court further held that where tenancy is subject to rent control legislatation, Standard rent would be a proper measure and in any event, annual value cannot exceed such standard rent. In the case of Mrs. Sheila Kaushish Vs. CIT, 131 ITR 435 (Sc), the question arose in the context of provisions of section 23 of the I.T. Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court applying the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dewan Daulat Rai Kapoor (supra) observed as follows :- "Now this was a definition given on the interpretation of the definition of "Annual value" in the Delhi Municipal Corpo…

Dr. Manju Dang, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 6421/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 2(22)(e)

…lease deed (PB-29-31), Order of Hon’ble Supreme Court (PB-32- 81). He has also relied on the following decisions : (i). Shyam Udyog P. Ltd. vs. ACIT, 3 SOT 98 (Delhi) (ii). Addl. CIT vs. Mrs. Leela Govindan, 113 ITR 136 (Mad.) (iii). Sheila Koushish vs. CIT, 131 ITR 435 (SC) (iv). Amolak Ram Khosla vs. CIT, 131 ITR 589(SC) (v). CIT vs. Kishanalal & Sons(Udyog) P. Ltd., 260 ITR 481(Cal) (vi). CIT v. Sardar Exhibitors P. Ltd., 203 Taxmann 640 (vii). CIT vs. Vinay Bharat Ram & Sons (HUF) 261 ITR 632 (Del) (viii). Dewan Daulat Rai Kapoor vs. N. Delhi Municipal Committee, 122 ITR 700 (SC) (ix). CIT vs. L. Bansidhar &…

Indokem Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT Cir 6, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 3287/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Jacinta Zimik Vashai

Section 147Section 22Section 23Section 23(1)Section 263

…interest on the deposit made by the tenant, since there is no provision to this effect in s. 22 or 23 of the IT Act, 1961. ITA Nos. 3382-3387/Mum/2014 16. In fact, this is the view taken even by the Supreme Court in the case of Shiela Kaushish Vs. CIT [1981] 131 ITR 435 (SC) on account of similarity of the provisions under the municipal enactments and Section 23 of the Act. 17. It is on this basis that in the present case, the CIT (A) gave primacy to the rateable value of the property fixed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi vide its assessment order dated 31.12.1996 and on this basis, opined that the actual…

Indokem Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT Cr 6, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 3286/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Jacinta Zimik Vashai

Section 147Section 22Section 23Section 23(1)Section 263

…interest on the deposit made by the tenant, since there is no provision to this effect in s. 22 or 23 of the IT Act, 1961. ITA Nos. 3382-3387/Mum/2014 16. In fact, this is the view taken even by the Supreme Court in the case of Shiela Kaushish Vs. CIT [1981] 131 ITR 435 (SC) on account of similarity of the provisions under the municipal enactments and Section 23 of the Act. 17. It is on this basis that in the present case, the CIT (A) gave primacy to the rateable value of the property fixed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi vide its assessment order dated 31.12.1996 and on this basis, opined that the actual…

Indokem Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT Cr 6, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 3285/MUM/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Jacinta Zimik Vashai

Section 147Section 22Section 23Section 23(1)Section 263

…interest on the deposit made by the tenant, since there is no provision to this effect in s. 22 or 23 of the IT Act, 1961. ITA Nos. 3382-3387/Mum/2014 16. In fact, this is the view taken even by the Supreme Court in the case of Shiela Kaushish Vs. CIT [1981] 131 ITR 435 (SC) on account of similarity of the provisions under the municipal enactments and Section 23 of the Act. 17. It is on this basis that in the present case, the CIT (A) gave primacy to the rateable value of the property fixed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi vide its assessment order dated 31.12.1996 and on this basis, opined that the actual…

Indokem Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT Cr 6, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 3284/MUM/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Jacinta Zimik Vashai

Section 147Section 22Section 23Section 23(1)Section 263

…interest on the deposit made by the tenant, since there is no provision to this effect in s. 22 or 23 of the IT Act, 1961. ITA Nos. 3382-3387/Mum/2014 16. In fact, this is the view taken even by the Supreme Court in the case of Shiela Kaushish Vs. CIT [1981] 131 ITR 435 (SC) on account of similarity of the provisions under the municipal enactments and Section 23 of the Act. 17. It is on this basis that in the present case, the CIT (A) gave primacy to the rateable value of the property fixed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi vide its assessment order dated 31.12.1996 and on this basis, opined that the actual…

Indokem Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT Cr 6, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 3283/MUM/2014[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Jacinta Zimik Vashai

Section 147Section 22Section 23Section 23(1)Section 263

…interest on the deposit made by the tenant, since there is no provision to this effect in s. 22 or 23 of the IT Act, 1961. ITA Nos. 3382-3387/Mum/2014 16. In fact, this is the view taken even by the Supreme Court in the case of Shiela Kaushish Vs. CIT [1981] 131 ITR 435 (SC) on account of similarity of the provisions under the municipal enactments and Section 23 of the Act. 17. It is on this basis that in the present case, the CIT (A) gave primacy to the rateable value of the property fixed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi vide its assessment order dated 31.12.1996 and on this basis, opined that the actual…

Indokem Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT Cir 6, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 3282/MUM/2014[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2018AY 2001-02

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Jacinta Zimik Vashai

Section 147Section 22Section 23Section 23(1)Section 263

…interest on the deposit made by the tenant, since there is no provision to this effect in s. 22 or 23 of the IT Act, 1961. ITA Nos. 3382-3387/Mum/2014 16. In fact, this is the view taken even by the Supreme Court in the case of Shiela Kaushish Vs. CIT [1981] 131 ITR 435 (SC) on account of similarity of the provisions under the municipal enactments and Section 23 of the Act. 17. It is on this basis that in the present case, the CIT (A) gave primacy to the rateable value of the property fixed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi vide its assessment order dated 31.12.1996 and on this basis, opined that the actual…

S.P. Corporation, Mumbai vs. A.C.I.T. RG. 11(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the Assessment Years

ITA 6298/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Perci PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin

Section 143(3)

…ount of so-called notional interest on the deposit made by the tenant, since there is no provision to this effect in s. 22 or 23 of the IT Act, 1961." In fact, this is the view taken even by the Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Shiela Kaushish Vs. CIT [1981] 131 ITR 435 on account of similarity of the provisions under the municipal enactments and Section 23 of the Act. It is on this basis that in the present case, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) gave primacy to the rateable value of the property fixed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi vide its assessment order dated December 31, 1996 and on this bas…

S.P. Corporation, Mumbai vs. A.C.I.T.RG.11(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the Assessment Years

ITA 2626/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Perci PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin

Section 143(3)

…ount of so-called notional interest on the deposit made by the tenant, since there is no provision to this effect in s. 22 or 23 of the IT Act, 1961." In fact, this is the view taken even by the Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Shiela Kaushish Vs. CIT [1981] 131 ITR 435 on account of similarity of the provisions under the municipal enactments and Section 23 of the Act. It is on this basis that in the present case, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) gave primacy to the rateable value of the property fixed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi vide its assessment order dated December 31, 1996 and on this bas…

S.P. Corporation, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 11(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the Assessment Years

ITA 6857/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Perci PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin

Section 143(3)

…ount of so-called notional interest on the deposit made by the tenant, since there is no provision to this effect in s. 22 or 23 of the IT Act, 1961." In fact, this is the view taken even by the Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Shiela Kaushish Vs. CIT [1981] 131 ITR 435 on account of similarity of the provisions under the municipal enactments and Section 23 of the Act. It is on this basis that in the present case, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) gave primacy to the rateable value of the property fixed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi vide its assessment order dated December 31, 1996 and on this bas…

ACIT 11(1), Mumbai vs. S.P. Corporation, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the Assessment Years

ITA 2747/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Perci PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin

Section 143(3)

…ount of so-called notional interest on the deposit made by the tenant, since there is no provision to this effect in s. 22 or 23 of the IT Act, 1961." In fact, this is the view taken even by the Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Shiela Kaushish Vs. CIT [1981] 131 ITR 435 on account of similarity of the provisions under the municipal enactments and Section 23 of the Act. It is on this basis that in the present case, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) gave primacy to the rateable value of the property fixed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi vide its assessment order dated December 31, 1996 and on this bas…

Mrs. Shiela Kaushish v. CIT

What is Mrs. Shiela Kaushish v. CIT authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Mrs. Shiela Kaushish v. CIT

Wendy Leslie Pereira, Mumbai vs. ACIT-21(3), Mumbai

DCIT 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Naresh Chander Oberoi, Mumbai

ACIT 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Naresh Chander Oberoi, Mumbai

Income Tax Officer, Ward-3-2, Jaipur vs. Silver Sand Builders Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

Income Tax Officer, Ward-3-2, Jaipur vs. Silver Sand Builders Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

Income Tax Officer, Ward-3-2, Jaipur vs. Silver Sand Builders Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Moni Kumar Subba, New Delhi

Moni Kumar Subba, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

Dr. Manju Dang, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Indokem Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT Cir 6, Mumbai

Indokem Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT Cr 6, Mumbai

Indokem Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT Cr 6, Mumbai

Indokem Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT Cr 6, Mumbai

Indokem Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT Cr 6, Mumbai

Indokem Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT Cir 6, Mumbai

S.P. Corporation, Mumbai vs. A.C.I.T. RG. 11(1), Mumbai

S.P. Corporation, Mumbai vs. A.C.I.T.RG.11(1), Mumbai

S.P. Corporation, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 11(1), Mumbai

ACIT 11(1), Mumbai vs. S.P. Corporation, Mumbai