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 435Supreme Court of India1981#1774 most cited

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.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Mrs. Shiela Kaushish v. CIT · Section 22 · Section 23 · Income-tax Act 1961 · house property income · notional interest · tenant deposit · annual value · rateable value

Also reported as

7 Taxmann 1

Sections most often in play

Section 1961 Section 143(3)Section 131 Section 132 Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

self occupied property section 80l section 23(2)annual letting value section 23(1)section 2(31)interest on interest annual value section 116 section 24(a)section 22 section 2(22)(e)

Judgments citing Mrs. Shiela Kaushish v. CIT

Asst CIT 16(3), Mumbai vs. Ravijibhai L Kakadia, Mumbai

ITA 334/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Anand OjhaFor Respondent: None

Section 143(3)Section 23(1)Section 24

…roperties. Accordingly, Assessing Officer was rightly directed to verify the Municipal Ratable Value in respect of above properties and modify his order. This view is fortified by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sheila Kaushish vs. CIT [1981] 131 ITR 435 (SC). In view of this, order of CIT(A) needs no interference from our side. We uphold the same. 5. As a result, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed. Pronounced in the open Court on this the 28th day of October, 2015. (RAJESH KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai: Dated 28/10/2015 S.K.SINHA आदेश क" ""त"ल"प अ"े"षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. राज"…

M/S Mayur Recreational & Dev.Ltd

The appeal is allowed in the above terms

ITA/266/2002HC Delhi13 Feb 2015

Section 22Section 23

…contending that the determination of annual letting value was incorrect as it departed from the previous years for which the matters stood finally settled. Besides, the assessee relied upon decision of the Supreme Court i.e. Sheila Kaushish V. CIT [1981] 131 ITR 435 and certain other decisions. The ITAT however, upset the findings of the CIT and accepted the revenue’s contention. 2015:DHC:1490-DB ITA No.266/2002 Page 3 8. During the pendency of these appeals and after the question of law was framed for other subsequent periods, the ITAT apparently controverted its previous views – which had…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Miracle Exporters Pvt Ltd

ITA - 1034 / 2010HC Delhi30 Mar 2011

…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." - 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 actua…

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi Central III vs. Moni Kumar Subba

ITA - 499 / 2008HC Delhi30 Mar 2011

Section 143(1)

…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.” 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 th…