Narsingdas Surajmal Properties (P) Ltd. v. CIT

127 ITR 221Reported decision1981#11065 most cited
9

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Issues it is cited on

business transfer agreementopening wdvclosely held companycolourable devicewritten down valuerule of consistencyintangible assetsappeal before cit(a)disallowance under section 14adisallowance u/s 14asection 36double taxation

Judgments citing Narsingdas Surajmal Properties (P) Ltd. v. CIT

ANANYA FINANCE FOR INCLUSIVE GROWTH PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

ITA 1744/AHD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H. Phani Raju, CIT-DR & Shri
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

…horoughly evaluated on their merits. This approach aligns with the principles of fairness and proper adjudication, ensuring that the assessee’s rights were duly considered. 35. The AR relied on the judgment in Narsingdas Surajmal Properties (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (127 ITR 221), where the Gauhati High Court held that rent payments could be allowed as deductions even without a registered lease agreement if the premises were actually occupied and used for business purposes. On the other hand, the DR placed reliance on the order of AO. 36. Based on the comprehensive evidence presented by the assessee, the judicial preced…

ANANYA FINANCE FOR INCLUSIVE GROWTH PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

ITA 2276/AHD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H. Phani Raju, CIT-DR & Shri
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

…horoughly evaluated on their merits. This approach aligns with the principles of fairness and proper adjudication, ensuring that the assessee’s rights were duly considered. 35. The AR relied on the judgment in Narsingdas Surajmal Properties (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (127 ITR 221), where the Gauhati High Court held that rent payments could be allowed as deductions even without a registered lease agreement if the premises were actually occupied and used for business purposes. On the other hand, the DR placed reliance on the order of AO. 36. Based on the comprehensive evidence presented by the assessee, the judicial preced…

ANANYA FINANCE FOR INCLUSIVE GROWTH PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

ITA 2275/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H. Phani Raju, CIT-DR & Shri
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

…horoughly evaluated on their merits. This approach aligns with the principles of fairness and proper adjudication, ensuring that the assessee’s rights were duly considered. 35. The AR relied on the judgment in Narsingdas Surajmal Properties (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (127 ITR 221), where the Gauhati High Court held that rent payments could be allowed as deductions even without a registered lease agreement if the premises were actually occupied and used for business purposes. On the other hand, the DR placed reliance on the order of AO. 36. Based on the comprehensive evidence presented by the assessee, the judicial preced…

ANANYA FINANCE FOR INCLUSIVE GROWTH PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

ITA 960/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H. Phani Raju, CIT-DR & Shri
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

…horoughly evaluated on their merits. This approach aligns with the principles of fairness and proper adjudication, ensuring that the assessee’s rights were duly considered. 35. The AR relied on the judgment in Narsingdas Surajmal Properties (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (127 ITR 221), where the Gauhati High Court held that rent payments could be allowed as deductions even without a registered lease agreement if the premises were actually occupied and used for business purposes. On the other hand, the DR placed reliance on the order of AO. 36. Based on the comprehensive evidence presented by the assessee, the judicial preced…

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ANANYA FINANCE FOR INCLUSIVE GROWTH PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

ITA 1186/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H. Phani Raju, CIT-DR & Shri
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

…horoughly evaluated on their merits. This approach aligns with the principles of fairness and proper adjudication, ensuring that the assessee’s rights were duly considered. 35. The AR relied on the judgment in Narsingdas Surajmal Properties (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (127 ITR 221), where the Gauhati High Court held that rent payments could be allowed as deductions even without a registered lease agreement if the premises were actually occupied and used for business purposes. On the other hand, the DR placed reliance on the order of AO. 36. Based on the comprehensive evidence presented by the assessee, the judicial preced…

GREEN TWIG ESTATE MANAGEMENT P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 2(1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical

ITA 3419/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Green Twig Estate Management Ito-2(1)(4), Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 5Th Floor, C/O. D.C. Bothra & Co. Llp (Ca) Vs. M.K. Road, (Formerly Known As D.C. Bothra & Mumbai-400020. Co.) 297, Tardeo Road, Wille Mansion, 1St Floor, Opp Bank Of India, Nana Chowk, Mumbai-400 007. Pan No. Aaecg 1617 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Rajkumar Singh Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Cit-Dr & Mr. Hoshang B. Irani, Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/09/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Rajkumar SinghFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar, CIT-DR &
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Green Twig Estate Management ITO-2(1)(4), Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 5th floor, C/o. D.C. Bothra & CO. LLP (CA) Vs. M.K. Road, (formerly known as D.C. Bothra & Mumbai-400020. Co.) 297, Tardeo Road, Wille Mansion, 1st floor, Opp Bank of India, Nana Chowk, Mumbai-400 007. PAN No. AAECG 1617 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Rajkumar Singh Revenue by : Mr. Manoj Kumar, CIT-DR & Mr. Hoshang B. Irani, DR…

GREEN TWIG ESTATE MANAGEMENT P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 2(1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical

ITA 3418/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Green Twig Estate Management Ito-2(1)(4), Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 5Th Floor, C/O. D.C. Bothra & Co. Llp (Ca) Vs. M.K. Road, (Formerly Known As D.C. Bothra & Mumbai-400020. Co.) 297, Tardeo Road, Wille Mansion, 1St Floor, Opp Bank Of India, Nana Chowk, Mumbai-400 007. Pan No. Aaecg 1617 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Rajkumar Singh Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Cit-Dr & Mr. Hoshang B. Irani, Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/09/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Rajkumar SinghFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar, CIT-DR &
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Green Twig Estate Management ITO-2(1)(4), Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 5th floor, C/o. D.C. Bothra & CO. LLP (CA) Vs. M.K. Road, (formerly known as D.C. Bothra & Mumbai-400020. Co.) 297, Tardeo Road, Wille Mansion, 1st floor, Opp Bank of India, Nana Chowk, Mumbai-400 007. PAN No. AAECG 1617 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Rajkumar Singh Revenue by : Mr. Manoj Kumar, CIT-DR & Mr. Hoshang B. Irani, DR…

RAMKRUSHNA ZILBAJI THAKRE ,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WRAD -4(4), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 207/NAG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur15 Jul 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Dr. Milind Bhusare, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vitthal M. Bhosale, Jt. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 68

…document is best evidence that an opposite party can rely upon, unless it is successfully withdrawn or proved erroneous. (Narayan Bhawantrao Gosavi Vs. Gopal Vinayak Gosavi & oth. AIR, 1960, SC Page 100) Narshingdas Surajmal Properties (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1981] 127 ITR 221, Gauhati High Court. In this case, according to the registered lease executed in 1955, the ground rent was Rs. 500 per annum. In 1961 this agreement was modified by an unregistered agreement raising the ground rent to Rs. 12,000 per annum. The authorities refused to deduct the higher amount of rent, on the ground that the subsequent agreement was…

M/S. SHOWA INDIA PVT. LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 166/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Smt. Beena A. Pillaii.T.(Tp) No.166/Del.2013 (Assessment Year 2008-09) M/S. Showa India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle 8(1), 23-32, Sector 58, New Delhi Faridabd, Haryana-121002 Gir / Pan :Aabce5725G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Aseem Chawla, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amrendra Kumar, CIT DR
Section 133(6)Section 271Section 92ASection 92C

…xpediency, as it is the businessman who takes the decision depending upon the peculiar nature of the business. • Ld.AR relied upon the following decisions to substantiate his submissions which are as below: a) Narringdas Sumjmal properties vs. CIT reported in 127 ITR 221 b) CIT vs. EKL Appliances Ltd reported in (2012) 209 taxman 200 (Delhi) c) Reebok India company VS ACIT in ITA No. 5857/Del/2012 d) Dresser-Rand India private limited vs. ACIT, e) • it has been submitted by the Ld. A.R. that the services availed from the AE by assessee has not been availed from any independent parties. Further he submitted that t…

Narsingdas Surajmal Properties (P) Ltd. v. CIT (127 ITR 221) — Cited in 9 Judgments | BharatTax