Mukherjee Estate (P.) Ltd. v. CIT

244 ITR 1High Court2000#9211 most cited
12

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also reported as

113 Taxmann 313

Sections most often in play

Section 115BBESection 143(3)Section 194I(b)Section 24Section 294Section 69A

Judgments citing Mukherjee Estate (P.) Ltd. v. CIT

GOWRI SHANKAR GUPTA,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), HYDERABAD

ITA 514/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 May 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Sashank Dundu, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.Praveen, DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 294Section 69A

…ousing Society Ltd Vs. ITO (ITA No. 423/Ahd/2012) 8 Gowri Shankar Gupta 6.2. I have duly considered the submissions of the appellant and materials on record. In the case of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Mukherjee Estate (P.) Ltd. Vs. CIT [2000] 113 Taxmann 313 (CAL) has held that the income from hoardings permitted by the assessee to other persons is assessable as income from other sources. Relevant extract of the order is as under – 2. The assessee derives income from house property, business, capital gains and other sources. The business of the assessee consists of letting out on hire of cinema h…

M/S. THAKUR INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LTD,RAIGAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANVEL CIRCLE, RAIGAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5592/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Devendra Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Mehta, D.R
Section 80I

…8 of the Act, the same would not amount to profits or gains derived from the industrial undertaking. The learned Departmental representative further referred to the hon'ble Calcutta High Court's decision in the case of Mukherjee Estate (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 244 ITR 1/113 Taxman 313 for the proposition that income mainly publicity charges by putting up hoarding/displaying advertisement from a building cannot be treated as income from property but income from other sources. The learned Departmental representative further submitted that the above proves that the assessee's income does not include any profit which…

THAKUR INFRAPROJECTS P. LTD,RAIGAD vs. DCIT-PANVEL CIRCLE, RAIGAD

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

ITA 742/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negi

For Appellant: Shri Devendra Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Amit Pratap Singh, D.R
Section 14ASection 80I

…8 of the Act, the same would not amount to profits or gains derived from the industrial undertaking. The learned Departmental representative further referred to the hon'ble Calcutta High Court's decision in the case of Mukherjee Estate (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 244 ITR 1/113 Taxman 313 for the proposition that income mainly publicity charges by putting up hoarding/displaying advertisement from a building cannot be treated as income from property but income from other sources. The learned Departmental representative further submitted that the above proves that the assessee's income does not include any profit which…

MAKER TOWER F PREMISES CO. OP SOCIETY LTD.,MUMBAI vs. CIT(A)-28, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1661/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2021AY 2014-15
For Respondent: December 31st , 2020
Section 143(3)Section 22Section 24

…has upheld that taxability under the head 'income from other sources' and thus reject the claim of deduction under section 24(a), is his understanding of the law laid down by Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Mukherjee Estates (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 244 ITR 1/113 Taxman 313. 7. We find that so far as Hon'ble Calcutta High Court's judgment in the case of Mukherjee Estates (P.) Ltd. (supra) is concerned, it is wholly misplaced inasmuch as it was a case in which the Tribunal had given a categorical finding that the assessee had "let out the hoardings" and in which the assessee's claim that he had let out t…

SHANTI KUTIR CHS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19(1)(4), MUMBAI

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

ITA 5280/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Apr 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5280/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07) बिाम/ Shanti Kutir Chs Ltd. Ito 19(1)(4) 10T H Road, Santacruz(E), Mumbai Mumbai 400055 V. स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaaas6226M (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh ChokshiFor Respondent: Shri. V. Justin ,DR
Section 143(3)Section 24Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

…st the same. The assessee was show caused by the AO as to why the said income be not treated as income from other sources keeping in view decision of Hon‟ble Hon‟ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Mukherjee Estate Private Limited v. CIT reported in (2000) 244 ITR 1(Cal. HC). The AO was of the view that assessee has authorised Tata Teleservices Maharashtra Ltd. to use only some parts of terrace to install antenna/tower and BTS equipments and not the full terrace and hence the said income is chargeable to tax under the head „income from other sources‟. Similarly, with respect to the second agreement with Tata T…

BIMANAGAR CO.OP.HSG.SO.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-7(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 423/AHD/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Pramod Kumar] Assessment Year: 2008-09 Bimanagar Co. Op. Housing Society Ltd. .......…………...........Appellant Opp. Shivranjani Cross Roads, Satellite, Ahmedabad - 380015 [Pan : Aaaab 4535 A] Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 7(2), Ahmedabad. ............................Respondent Appearances By: Dk Parikh For The Appellant Dinesh Singh For The Respondent Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 28.06.2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 22.09.2017 O R D E R This Appeal, Filed By The Assessee, Is Directed Against The Order Dated 5Th 1. December 2011, Passed By The Learned Cit(A), In The Matter Of Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Grievances Raised By The Appellant Are As Follows :

Section 143(3)Section 22Section 24

…atisfied that land on which hoarding rights were given is appurtenant to the building and cannot be viewed on standalone basis. As regards revenue’s reliance on Hon’ble Calcutta High Court’s judgement in the case of Mukherjee Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT [(2000) 244 ITR 1 (Cal)], I may only refer to the following observations made by me in the case of Manpreet Singh vs. ITO [(2015) 38 ITR (Trib) 55 (Del)]. 7. We find that so far as Hon’ble Calcutta High Court’s judgment in the case of Mukerjee Estates Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is concerned, it is wholly misplaced inasmuch as it was a case in which the Tribunal had given a c…

ASHAPURA DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. JCIT -RANGE 25(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby Allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7119/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7119/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S. Ashapura Developers Jt. Commissioner Of Income बनाम/ 101B, Hallmark Business Tax Range 25(1) Vs. Plaza, Opp. Gurunanak 1St Floor, Hospital, Sant Gyaneshwar Pratyakskar Bhavan, Marg, Bandra (East), Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400051 Mumbai - 400051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aanfa1971F

For Appellant: Shri Vijay C. KothariFor Respondent: Shri B.D.Naik
Section 14Section 143(1)Section 22Section 23

…s. Associated Buildings Company Ltd. [137 ITR 339 (BOM)] iv CIT V/s. K.L.Puri HUF [223 ITR 43(DEL)] v The Saswad Mali Sugar Factory Ltd. V/s. CIT [236 ITR 706 (BOM)] vi CIT V/s. Halai Memon Association [243 ITR 439 (MAD)] vii Mukherji Estate (P) Ltd. V/s CIT [244 ITR 1(CAL)] 1.5 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) fails to identify the base of difference between immovable property and commercial asset before applying the above referred citations. 2 A.Y. 2010-11 1.6 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not applying following citations without identifying the difference of facts,…

ACIT CEN CIR 29, MUMBAI vs. VIJAYDEEP HOTELS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3291/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं /I.Ta Nos. 3291,3293,3384 & 3385/Mum/11 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2004-05 To 2007-08 The Acit, M/S. Vijaydeep Hotels Pvt. बनाम/ Cent. Cir-29, Ltd., Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Hotel Bawa International, Mumbai-400 020 Nehru Road Ext, Near Domestic Airport, Vile Parle, Mumbai-400 049 आयकर अपील सं /I.Ta Nos. 3241 & 3243/Mum/11 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 & 2007-08 M/S. Vijaydeep Hotels Pvt. The Acit, बनाम/ Ltd., Cent. Cir-29, Vs. Hotel Bawa International, Aayakar Bhavan, Nehru Road Ext, Mumbai-400 020 Near Domestic Airport, Vile Parle, Mumbai-400 049 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacv 1582D आयकर अपील सं /I.Ta Nos. 951 To 953/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06 To 2007-08 Shri Karanveer Singh G. The Acit, बनाम/ Bawa, Cent. Cir-29, Vs. 22, Sahib Guru Angad Aayakar Bhavan, Niwas, Mumbai-400 020 Vitthal Nagar Co. Op. Soc. N.S. Road No. 22, Jvpd Scheme, Juhu, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400 049 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aejpb 8856F

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri G.M. Dass
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 37(1)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ , मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं /I.TA Nos. 3291,3293,3384 & 3385/Mum/11 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2004-05 to 2007-08 The ACIT, M/s. Vijaydeep Hotels Pvt. बनाम/ Cent. Cir-29, Ltd., Vs. Aayakar BHavan, Hotel Bawa International, Mumbai-400 020 Nehru Road Ext, Near Domestic Airport, Vile Parle, Mumbai-400 049 आयकर अपील सं /I.TA Nos. 3241 & 3243/Mum/11 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 & 2007-08 M/s. Vijaydeep Hotels Pvt. The ACIT, बनाम/ Ltd.,…

VIJAYDEEP HOTELS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 29, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3241/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं /I.Ta Nos. 3291,3293,3384 & 3385/Mum/11 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2004-05 To 2007-08 The Acit, M/S. Vijaydeep Hotels Pvt. बनाम/ Cent. Cir-29, Ltd., Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Hotel Bawa International, Mumbai-400 020 Nehru Road Ext, Near Domestic Airport, Vile Parle, Mumbai-400 049 आयकर अपील सं /I.Ta Nos. 3241 & 3243/Mum/11 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 & 2007-08 M/S. Vijaydeep Hotels Pvt. The Acit, बनाम/ Ltd., Cent. Cir-29, Vs. Hotel Bawa International, Aayakar Bhavan, Nehru Road Ext, Mumbai-400 020 Near Domestic Airport, Vile Parle, Mumbai-400 049 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacv 1582D आयकर अपील सं /I.Ta Nos. 951 To 953/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06 To 2007-08 Shri Karanveer Singh G. The Acit, बनाम/ Bawa, Cent. Cir-29, Vs. 22, Sahib Guru Angad Aayakar Bhavan, Niwas, Mumbai-400 020 Vitthal Nagar Co. Op. Soc. N.S. Road No. 22, Jvpd Scheme, Juhu, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400 049 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aejpb 8856F

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri G.M. Dass
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 37(1)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ , मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं /I.TA Nos. 3291,3293,3384 & 3385/Mum/11 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2004-05 to 2007-08 The ACIT, M/s. Vijaydeep Hotels Pvt. बनाम/ Cent. Cir-29, Ltd., Vs. Aayakar BHavan, Hotel Bawa International, Mumbai-400 020 Nehru Road Ext, Near Domestic Airport, Vile Parle, Mumbai-400 049 आयकर अपील सं /I.TA Nos. 3241 & 3243/Mum/11 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 & 2007-08 M/s. Vijaydeep Hotels Pvt. The ACIT, बनाम/ Ltd.,…

SMT TARAMONI JALAN,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-43(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 886/KOL/2015[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Jan 2016AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

Section 143(3)Section 22Section 24

…said amount is declared in the return under the head “income from house property” after claiming standard deduction under section 24. Relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Mukherjee Estate Pvt. Limited –vs.- CIT reported in 244 ITR 1, the Assessing Officer held that the said amount was chargeable to tax in the hands of the assessee as income from other sources and accordingly the standard deduction claimed by the asseessee under section 24 was disallowed by him in the assessment completed under section 143(3) vide an order dated 06.07.2010. 3. Against the order passed by the As…

PRANIK LANDMARK ASSOCIATES ( SINCE SUCCEDED),MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG 19(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 826/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09 Synchem Investments Pvt. Acit Rg 19(2) Ltd. (Erstwhile Pranik Piramal Chambers, बनाम/ Landmark Associates), Vs. 159 Cst Road, Kalina, Mumbai -400098 Mumbai- (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aaafp2410K "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Ms. Vasanti Patel (Ar) Shri Somnath Ukkal (Dr) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 4/11/2015 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 18/11/2015 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order:

Section 143(3)

…here was no reason to give different treatment to the same in this year. 5. On the other hand, Ld. DR has supported the orders of lower authorities and has also relied upon the judgment of Calcutta High Court in the case of Mukharjee Estate Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT 244 ITR 1 and requested for upholding the orders of lower authorities. In response to the submission of Ld Counsel for following a consistent view every year, it was submitted by Ld DR that each year is a separate year, and therefore AO was free to take a different view in this year. However, he was not able to show any change in facts or law. 6. In reply L…

NIGARA HOTELS& BUILDERA ( P) LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, we set aside the

ITA/43/2014HC Delhi25 Mar 2015

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA

Section 260

…receipts in question as either income from business or income from other sources, reference has been made to the rulings in the cases reported as CIT v. National Storage Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Mukherjee Estate (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax (2000) 244 ITR 1 (Cal.), but improperly so. 15. In National Storage Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the assessee had purchased a plot of land and constructed thereon a building in the nature of godown. In the super-structure, thus built, certain vaults were developed with the objective of making them available on licence basis to film distributors for storing cinema fi…

Mukherjee Estate (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (244 ITR 1) — Cited in 12 Judgments | BharatTax