P.V.G. Raju Rajah of Vizianagaram v. CIT

66 ITR 122High Court1967#25433 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 344,197 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Judgments citing P.V.G. Raju Rajah of Vizianagaram v. CIT

M/S Sanofi India Ltd (Formerly Known As Aventis Pharma Ltd, Mumbai vs. The ACIT RG 8(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1606/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 271(1)(c)

…Del) : TC 27R.586, some aspects, viz., the Supreme Court's decision in East India Housing & Land Development Trust Ltd. vs. CIT (1961) 42 ITR 49 (SC) : TC 13R.800 and the Andhra Pradesh High Court's decision in P.V.G. Raju Rajah of Vizianagaram vs. CIT (1967) 66 ITR 122 (AP) had not been considered; (2) while interpreting ss. 22 and 23 of the Act, the provisions of s. 38 had to be kept in mind which was not done; (3) the Revenue's counsel's contention regarding non- applicability of the exception in s. 22 had not been dealt with; and (4) there were a large number of important points which required a more detailed…

ACIT- 3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Mm/S Sanofi India Limited (Formerly Known As Aventis Pharma Ltd)., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1302/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 271(1)(c)

…Del) : TC 27R.586, some aspects, viz., the Supreme Court's decision in East India Housing & Land Development Trust Ltd. vs. CIT (1961) 42 ITR 49 (SC) : TC 13R.800 and the Andhra Pradesh High Court's decision in P.V.G. Raju Rajah of Vizianagaram vs. CIT (1967) 66 ITR 122 (AP) had not been considered; (2) while interpreting ss. 22 and 23 of the Act, the provisions of s. 38 had to be kept in mind which was not done; (3) the Revenue's counsel's contention regarding non- applicability of the exception in s. 22 had not been dealt with; and (4) there were a large number of important points which required a more detailed…

Atiqurehman Imtiyaz Ahmed Atlaswala, Mumbai vs. ACIT 17(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1085/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Pawan Singhassessment Year: 2008-09 Atiqurehman Imtiyaz Ahmed Atlaswala, Acit, Cir 17(3), 21Nd Ghelabhai Street, Madanpura, Piramal Chambers, Parel, Vs. Mumbai-400058. Mumbai-400012. Pan: Aafpa4566L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak TralshawalaFor Respondent: Shri A. Ramachandran (DR)
Section 24(1)Section 37

…ee year, thus we hold that the property was let out by the assessee to M/s P.T.K. Designs Pvt Ltd. And thus we hold the income derived from the property be treated as income from house property. 10. The Andhra Pradesh High Court in P.V.G Vs. CIT reported vide 66 ITR 122(AP) has held that, the term building or land appurtenant thereto includes market consist of shops, building, goudown and open space and therefore the income derived by the owner from letting out the shops, building or godowns may be assessed under the head “ income from house property” 11. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Shambhu Investment Pvt. Ltd. vs.…

P.V.G. Raju Rajah of Vizianagaram v. CIT (66 ITR 122) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax