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)

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

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

ITA 2596/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2006-07

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. ACIT RG 11(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2595/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…

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

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

ITA 2594/MUM/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2003-04

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…

Suketu Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 17(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4153/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4153/Mum/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Shri Suketu Shah Ito-17(3)(4), बनाम/ 401/402, Tulsiani Chambers, Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Free Press Journal Marg, Mumbai Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Afjps 7645 R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Anant Pai ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. N. Hemalatha

For Appellant: Shri Anant PaiFor Respondent: Ms. N. Hemalatha

Section 22Section 23(1)(a)

…hled by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Smt. Radhadevi Dalmia reported in 125 ITR 134 and by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court decision in the case of Sakarlal Balabhai and also the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Sheila Kaushish Vs CIT 131 ITR 435 (SC) that a percentage on the investment, which could be treated as a reasonable return for working the standard rent. Further the Murnbai ITAT in the case of JTO vs. Chem Mech (P) Ltd. (2002) 83 ITD 427 (Mum) and ACIT Vs Omprakash & Co. (2004) 87 TTJ 183 (Mum) followed the above decisions. 3.8 When the property is not covered by the Rent Contro…

D.C.I.T., Circle-2, Gwalior vs. M/S Prem Motors Pvt Ltd., Gwalior

The appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 327/AGR/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra16 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Section 2(22)(e)Section 22Section 40A(2)(b)

…standard’ rent. After analyzing the decisions of the apex Court in Amolak Ram Khosla vs. CIT (1981) 131 ITR 589 (SC), Dewan Daulat Rai Kapoor vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee (1980) 122 ITR 700 (SC) and Sheila Kaushish vs. CIT (1981) 24 CTR (SC) 351 : (1981) 131 ITR 435 (SC), this Court has laid down in CIT vs. Raghubir Saran Charitable Trust (1990) 183 ITR 297 (Del), that the Tribunal was justified in holding that the market rent of the property could not be more than the standard rent. In Raghubir Saran Charitable Trust (supra) the AO had incorrectly computed the market rent of the house and had added the diff…

ITO, Ward-36(1), Kolkata vs. Sri Raghu Nandan Modi, Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2186/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jun 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 17(2)Section 2(24)(iv)Section 28

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “B” KOLKATA Before Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Judicial Member and Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member ITA No.2186-2187/Kol/2014 Assessment Years:2010-11 & 2011-12 Income Tax Officer, V/s. Sri Raghu Nandan Modi Ward-36(1), Aayakaar 20, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Bhawan (Poorva), 8th Raasoi Court, Floor, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700 002 Kolkata-107 [PAN No.AEXPM 8474 P] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent C.O. No. 03-04/Kol/2015 a/o ITA No.2186-2187/Kol/2014) Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Sri Raghu Nandan Modi V/s. Income Tax Officer, 20, R.N. Mukherjee Road, W…

M/S Sobha Interiors Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 1692/BANG/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Nov 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Respondent: Shri Kamaladhar, Standing Counsel

Section 234

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.1607 & 1692/Bang/2012 Assessment years : 2007-08 & 2009-10 M/s. Sobha Interiors Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of E-106, Sunrise Chambers, Income Tax, # 22, Ulsoor Road, Circle 12(3), Bangalore – 560 022. Bangalore. PAN: AAECS 6275L ITO, Ward 12(2), Bangalore. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessment year : 2007-08 M/s. Sobha Glazing & Metal Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Works Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, # 10, Bommasandra Jigani Link Circle 12(3), Road, Bommasan…

M/S Sobha Glazing & Metal Works Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 1630/BANG/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Nov 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Respondent: Shri Kamaladhar, Standing Counsel

Section 234

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.1607 & 1692/Bang/2012 Assessment years : 2007-08 & 2009-10 M/s. Sobha Interiors Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of E-106, Sunrise Chambers, Income Tax, # 22, Ulsoor Road, Circle 12(3), Bangalore – 560 022. Bangalore. PAN: AAECS 6275L ITO, Ward 12(2), Bangalore. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessment year : 2007-08 M/s. Sobha Glazing & Metal Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Works Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, # 10, Bommasandra Jigani Link Circle 12(3), Road, Bommasan…

M/S Sobha Interiors Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 1607/BANG/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Nov 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Respondent: Shri Kamaladhar, Standing Counsel

Section 234

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.1607 & 1692/Bang/2012 Assessment years : 2007-08 & 2009-10 M/s. Sobha Interiors Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of E-106, Sunrise Chambers, Income Tax, # 22, Ulsoor Road, Circle 12(3), Bangalore – 560 022. Bangalore. PAN: AAECS 6275L ITO, Ward 12(2), Bangalore. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessment year : 2007-08 M/s. Sobha Glazing & Metal Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Works Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, # 10, Bommasandra Jigani Link Circle 12(3), Road, Bommasan…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Kalyani Construtions (P) Limited, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are

ITA 469/CHNY/2003[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Sept 2016AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.468 & 469/Mds/2003 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 1998-99 & 1999-2000 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Kalyani Constructions Pvt. Income Tax, V. Ltd., Central Circle Ii(5), No.9, Bazullah Road, T. Nagar, Chennai - 600 034. Chennai - 600 017. Pan : 1-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Srinivas, JCITFor Respondent: None

…owever, the CIT(Appeals) found that the annual letting value cannot be estimated. The CIT(Appeals) also referred the judgments of Apex Court in Dewal Daulat Raj Kapoor v. New Delhi Municipal Committee (1980) 122 ITR 700 and Mrs. Sheel Kauchish v. CIT (1981) 131 ITR 435 and found that the annual letting value should be determined in accordance with Rent Control Legislation. 5. In this case, what was let out by the assessee is constructed building/vacant space, which was treated as stock-in-trade. The 5 I.T.A. Nos.468 & 469/Mds/2003 question arises for consideration is estimation of annual rental value for the…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Kalyani Construtions (P) Limited, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are

ITA 468/CHNY/2003[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Sept 2016AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.468 & 469/Mds/2003 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 1998-99 & 1999-2000 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Kalyani Constructions Pvt. Income Tax, V. Ltd., Central Circle Ii(5), No.9, Bazullah Road, T. Nagar, Chennai - 600 034. Chennai - 600 017. Pan : 1-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Srinivas, JCITFor Respondent: None

…owever, the CIT(Appeals) found that the annual letting value cannot be estimated. The CIT(Appeals) also referred the judgments of Apex Court in Dewal Daulat Raj Kapoor v. New Delhi Municipal Committee (1980) 122 ITR 700 and Mrs. Sheel Kauchish v. CIT (1981) 131 ITR 435 and found that the annual letting value should be determined in accordance with Rent Control Legislation. 5. In this case, what was let out by the assessee is constructed building/vacant space, which was treated as stock-in-trade. The 5 I.T.A. Nos.468 & 469/Mds/2003 question arises for consideration is estimation of annual rental value for the…

Jubiliant Enterprises P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. JCIT (OSD) Cen Cir 39, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee and the appeal of the

ITA 7282/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri G. S. Pannu & Sri Sanjay Gargthe Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Jubiliant Enterprises Pvt. Income-Tax, Central Circle- Ltd/., 11-B, B Wing, Mittal 6(4)[Old Cc 39], Room Towers, Nariman Point, No.32(1), Ground Floor, Mumbai 400001 Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Pan:Aaabcj 4688D Mumbai 400001 Appellant .. Respondent M/S. Jubiliant Enterprises Pvt. Ltd/., Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of 11-B, B Wing, Mittal Towers, Income-Tax, Central Circle- Nariman Point, Mumbai 400001 6(4)[Old Cc 39], Room Pan:Aaabcj 4688D No.32(1), Ground Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai 400001 Appellant .. Respondent Revenue By: Shri Prakash Patnade, Dr Assessee By: Shri Vijay Mehta, Ar Date Of Hearing: 23-06-2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 20-07-2016

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Patnade, DR

Section 14A

…lue fixed by the municipal authorities can be safely treated as rational and reasonable yardstick for determination of ALV u/s 23 (1) (a) of the Income 7 Tax Act. He, in this respect also referred to the following decisions: 1. Mrs. Sheila Kaushish Vs. CIT 131 ITR 435 (SC) 2. Diwan Daulat Kapoor Vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee 122 ITR 700 (SC) 3. CIT Vs. Moni Kumar Subba 240 CTR 97 (Del) (FB) and 4. Smitaben N. Ambani Vs CWT 323 ITR 104 (Bom) He further observed that whatever benefits were derived by the assessee form the interest free deposits that were duly reflected and offered for taxation in the return…

ACIT CC 6(4), Mumbai vs. Jubliant Enterprises P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee and the appeal of the

ITA 7101/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri G. S. Pannu & Sri Sanjay Gargthe Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Jubiliant Enterprises Pvt. Income-Tax, Central Circle- Ltd/., 11-B, B Wing, Mittal 6(4)[Old Cc 39], Room Towers, Nariman Point, No.32(1), Ground Floor, Mumbai 400001 Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Pan:Aaabcj 4688D Mumbai 400001 Appellant .. Respondent M/S. Jubiliant Enterprises Pvt. Ltd/., Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of 11-B, B Wing, Mittal Towers, Income-Tax, Central Circle- Nariman Point, Mumbai 400001 6(4)[Old Cc 39], Room Pan:Aaabcj 4688D No.32(1), Ground Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai 400001 Appellant .. Respondent Revenue By: Shri Prakash Patnade, Dr Assessee By: Shri Vijay Mehta, Ar Date Of Hearing: 23-06-2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 20-07-2016

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Patnade, DR

Section 14A

…lue fixed by the municipal authorities can be safely treated as rational and reasonable yardstick for determination of ALV u/s 23 (1) (a) of the Income 7 Tax Act. He, in this respect also referred to the following decisions: 1. Mrs. Sheila Kaushish Vs. CIT 131 ITR 435 (SC) 2. Diwan Daulat Kapoor Vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee 122 ITR 700 (SC) 3. CIT Vs. Moni Kumar Subba 240 CTR 97 (Del) (FB) and 4. Smitaben N. Ambani Vs CWT 323 ITR 104 (Bom) He further observed that whatever benefits were derived by the assessee form the interest free deposits that were duly reflected and offered for taxation in the return…

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)

…at is to be brought to tax as income from house property u/s.23(1) is the higher of the rent actually received or the Municipal Ratable Value or the standard rent 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)…

Ranjit H. Bhavnani, Mumbai vs. DCIT 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3698/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita Nos.8413 To 8415/Mum/2011 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2003-04, 2004-05 & 2008-09) Smt. Mala Ranjit Bhavnani, 3, Vs. Ito-12(2)(2), Mumbai-20 Buckley Court, 5, Wodhouse Road, Mumbai-400001 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aafpb 1108 B (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.3698/Mum/2012 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2007-008) Ranjit H. Bhavnani, 3, Buckley Vs. Dcit-3(3) Mumbai-20 Court, 5, Wodhouse Road, Mumbai-400001 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aacpb 8459 L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Nitesh Joshi याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Peeyush Sonkar सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 09/12/2015 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 31/03/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A), Mumbai, For The Assessment Years 2003-04, 2004-05, 2007-08 & 2008-09, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.143(3) Of The I.T.Act. 2. Common Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee In All The Years Under Consideration, Therefore, All The Appeals Were Heard & Are Now

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Peeyush Sonkar

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 23

…e property by adopting the Standard Rent as per Bombay Rent Control act is confirmed.” 5. Against the above order of CIT(A) assessee is in further appeal before us. 6. Ld. AR relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Sheila Kaushish, 131 ITR 435, decision of Hon’ble Kolkata High Court in the case of Smt Prabhabati Bansali, 141 ITR 419, decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of M.V.Sonavala, 117 ITR 246 and Smt. Smitaben N. Ambani, 323 ITR 104. Reliance was also placed on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Shapoorji & Co.(Rajkot) Pvt. Ltd., order dated 3-7…

Mala Ranjit Bhavnani, Mumbai vs. ITO 12(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8415/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita Nos.8413 To 8415/Mum/2011 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2003-04, 2004-05 & 2008-09) Smt. Mala Ranjit Bhavnani, 3, Vs. Ito-12(2)(2), Mumbai-20 Buckley Court, 5, Wodhouse Road, Mumbai-400001 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aafpb 1108 B (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.3698/Mum/2012 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2007-008) Ranjit H. Bhavnani, 3, Buckley Vs. Dcit-3(3) Mumbai-20 Court, 5, Wodhouse Road, Mumbai-400001 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aacpb 8459 L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Nitesh Joshi याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Peeyush Sonkar सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 09/12/2015 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 31/03/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A), Mumbai, For The Assessment Years 2003-04, 2004-05, 2007-08 & 2008-09, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.143(3) Of The I.T.Act. 2. Common Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee In All The Years Under Consideration, Therefore, All The Appeals Were Heard & Are Now

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Peeyush Sonkar

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 23

…e property by adopting the Standard Rent as per Bombay Rent Control act is confirmed.” 5. Against the above order of CIT(A) assessee is in further appeal before us. 6. Ld. AR relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Sheila Kaushish, 131 ITR 435, decision of Hon’ble Kolkata High Court in the case of Smt Prabhabati Bansali, 141 ITR 419, decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of M.V.Sonavala, 117 ITR 246 and Smt. Smitaben N. Ambani, 323 ITR 104. Reliance was also placed on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Shapoorji & Co.(Rajkot) Pvt. Ltd., order dated 3-7…

Mala Ranjit Bhavnani, Mumbai vs. ITO 12(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8414/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita Nos.8413 To 8415/Mum/2011 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2003-04, 2004-05 & 2008-09) Smt. Mala Ranjit Bhavnani, 3, Vs. Ito-12(2)(2), Mumbai-20 Buckley Court, 5, Wodhouse Road, Mumbai-400001 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aafpb 1108 B (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.3698/Mum/2012 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2007-008) Ranjit H. Bhavnani, 3, Buckley Vs. Dcit-3(3) Mumbai-20 Court, 5, Wodhouse Road, Mumbai-400001 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aacpb 8459 L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Nitesh Joshi याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Peeyush Sonkar सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 09/12/2015 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 31/03/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A), Mumbai, For The Assessment Years 2003-04, 2004-05, 2007-08 & 2008-09, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.143(3) Of The I.T.Act. 2. Common Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee In All The Years Under Consideration, Therefore, All The Appeals Were Heard & Are Now

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Peeyush Sonkar

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 23

…e property by adopting the Standard Rent as per Bombay Rent Control act is confirmed.” 5. Against the above order of CIT(A) assessee is in further appeal before us. 6. Ld. AR relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Sheila Kaushish, 131 ITR 435, decision of Hon’ble Kolkata High Court in the case of Smt Prabhabati Bansali, 141 ITR 419, decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of M.V.Sonavala, 117 ITR 246 and Smt. Smitaben N. Ambani, 323 ITR 104. Reliance was also placed on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Shapoorji & Co.(Rajkot) Pvt. Ltd., order dated 3-7…

Mala Ranjit Bhavnani, Mumbai vs. ITO 12(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8413/MUM/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita Nos.8413 To 8415/Mum/2011 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2003-04, 2004-05 & 2008-09) Smt. Mala Ranjit Bhavnani, 3, Vs. Ito-12(2)(2), Mumbai-20 Buckley Court, 5, Wodhouse Road, Mumbai-400001 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aafpb 1108 B (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.3698/Mum/2012 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2007-008) Ranjit H. Bhavnani, 3, Buckley Vs. Dcit-3(3) Mumbai-20 Court, 5, Wodhouse Road, Mumbai-400001 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aacpb 8459 L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Nitesh Joshi याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Peeyush Sonkar सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 09/12/2015 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 31/03/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A), Mumbai, For The Assessment Years 2003-04, 2004-05, 2007-08 & 2008-09, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.143(3) Of The I.T.Act. 2. Common Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee In All The Years Under Consideration, Therefore, All The Appeals Were Heard & Are Now

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Peeyush Sonkar

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 23

…e property by adopting the Standard Rent as per Bombay Rent Control act is confirmed.” 5. Against the above order of CIT(A) assessee is in further appeal before us. 6. Ld. AR relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Sheila Kaushish, 131 ITR 435, decision of Hon’ble Kolkata High Court in the case of Smt Prabhabati Bansali, 141 ITR 419, decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of M.V.Sonavala, 117 ITR 246 and Smt. Smitaben N. Ambani, 323 ITR 104. Reliance was also placed on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Shapoorji & Co.(Rajkot) Pvt. Ltd., order dated 3-7…

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

…ental in respect of the two properties in question range between Rs. 8,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- is not supported by any evidence and therefore, the appellant’s submissions are not acceptable. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sheila Kaushish vs, CIT(1981) 131 ITR 435, held that the annual value of the property is required to be determined with reference to “standard rent” and not the actual rent received. In the case of Smt. Radha Devi Dalmiya 125 ITR 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 o…

Vishwanath Acharaya, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 11(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7976/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7976/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08)

For Respondent: Shri B. Yadagiri

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…f so- called notional interest on the deposit made by the tenant, since there is no provision to this effect in section 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 v. 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 ITA 7976/M/11 15 December 31,…

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

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

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

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

Suketu Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 17(3)(4), Mumbai

D.C.I.T., Circle-2, Gwalior vs. M/S Prem Motors Pvt Ltd., Gwalior

ITO, Ward-36(1), Kolkata vs. Sri Raghu Nandan Modi, Kolkata

M/S Sobha Interiors Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

M/S Sobha Glazing & Metal Works Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

M/S Sobha Interiors Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

ACIT, Chennai vs. Kalyani Construtions (P) Limited, Chennai

ACIT, Chennai vs. Kalyani Construtions (P) Limited, Chennai

Jubiliant Enterprises P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. JCIT (OSD) Cen Cir 39, Mumbai

ACIT CC 6(4), Mumbai vs. Jubliant Enterprises P.Ltd, Mumbai

Asst CIT 16(2), Mumbai vs. Govindbhai L. Kakadia, Mumbai

Ranjit H. Bhavnani, Mumbai vs. DCIT 3(3), Mumbai

Mala Ranjit Bhavnani, Mumbai vs. ITO 12(2)(2), Mumbai

Mala Ranjit Bhavnani, Mumbai vs. ITO 12(2)(2), Mumbai

Mala Ranjit Bhavnani, Mumbai vs. ITO 12(2)(2), Mumbai

Vinod Harbanslal Kheterpal, Thane vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 46, Mumbai

Vishwanath Acharaya, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 11(1), Mumbai