Radha Devi Dalmia v. CIT

125 ITR 134High Court1980#2085 most cited

What is Radha Devi Dalmia v. CIT authority for?

When determining income from house property under Section 23, the Annual Letable Value (ALV) can be estimated by deeming 7% of the property's value as notional rent, particularly when actual rent or other clear basis for ALV is absent.

55

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

Also referred to as

Radha Devi Dalmia v. CIT · 125 ITR 134 · Section 23 · Section 23(1)(a) · Annual Letable Value · ALV estimation · notional rent · deemed rent · 7% of property value · income from house property · vacant property income · computation of ALV

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 22Section 23(1)(a)Section 24(a)Section 263

Issues it is cited on

section 23interestsection 14total incomebusiness

Judgments citing Radha Devi Dalmia v. CIT

VAMONA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD ,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL -2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2507/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 22Section 23(1)Section 23(1)(a)Section 24Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, AM I.T.A. No.2507/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Vamona Developers Pvt. Ltd., Principal Commissioner Market City Resources Pvt. of Income Tax (Cenral-2), Ltd., Ground Floor, R.R. Room No. 1920, 19th Floor, Hosiery Bldg., Shree Laxmi Vs. Air India Building, Nariman Woollen Mills Estate, Mumbai- Point, Mumbai-400021. 400011. PAN : AACCV3425B Appellant) : Respondent) Appellant /Assessee by : Shri Vijay Mehta, AR Revenue / Respondent by : Shri Ankush Kapoor, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 22.07.2024 Date of Prono…

SHRI SAILESHBHAI SHAMBHUBHAI HIRPARA,JETPUR vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), RAJKOT

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 59/RJT/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 59/Rjt/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17) Shri Saileshbhai The Deputy बनाम/ Shambhubhai Hirpara Commissioner Of Income Vs. C/O. Nishan Export, Tax Dhoraji Road, Jetpur, Circle-1(2), Rajkot Rajkot - 360370 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaeph3006R .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : None Shri Ashish Kumar Pandey, ""यथ" क" ओर से / Sr.D.R. Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 23/08/2023 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 30/08/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.01.2020 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Rajkot (In Short ‘Cit(A)’) Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 22.12.2018 Passed By The Dc/Ac, Circle-1(2), Rajkot Under Section

For Appellant: None
Section 1Section 10(24)Section 144Section 14A

…ot. This is a small flat which is vacant, the copy of house tax bill for the same is enclosed herewith. 4. Regarding the adoption of 7% of the total value of the property applying the Allahabad High Court Judgement in the case of the Radhaddevi Dalmia vs. CIT 125 ITR 134, I respectfully disagree with the same and submit that the notional rent for the purpose of Section-23 if at all the same is taken, the same to be as per Municipal House Tax bill. Even otherwise no property in the above period can fetch such high rent. The fact is that return on property is very negligible and very low if the rent is considered a…

VINAY BHASIN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 61(1), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 164/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2016-17]

Section 23Section 23(1)(a)Section 23(4)

…cer had taken support of the case laws such as I. Commissioner of Income Tax vs Smt. Bhagwati Devi (2008) 298 ITR 413 (Jharkhand) II. ITO vs Chem. Mech. P. Ltd. 83 ITD 427, Mumbai ITAT, b-Bench III. Smt. Radha Devi Dalmia vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (1980) 125 ITR 134 Allahabad High Court IV. Susham Singla vs. Commissioner of Income Tax P & H High Court 3.1. In the absence of any calculation of annual let able value of the property submitted by the assessee the Assessing Officer had considered the ALV of the properties @7% of the total investment value. The Assessing Officer considered notional rental income…

SUMAN GUPTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - CC- 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2015

ITA 3860/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Ita Nos. 3860 & 3859/Mum/2018 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Smt. Suman Gupta, Dy. Cit Cc-4(2), 6Th New Harileela House, Air India Building, 19Th Mint Road, Fort, Vs. Floor, Room No. 1918, Mumbai-400 001. Nariman Point, Mumbai-21. Pan No. Ahqpg 0220 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Bhupendra Karkhanis & Mr. Aakash Marthak & Mr. Vijay Bhatt, Ars Revenue By : Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 02/03/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 27/04/2023 Order

For Appellant: Mr. Bhupendra Karkhanis &For Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

…property as ‘income from house property income from house property’ following the decision of following the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of M/s Radha Devi M/s Radha Devi the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Dalmia v. CIT 125 ITR 134 (All) Dalmia v. CIT 125 ITR 134 (All). The detail of the rental value . The detail of the rental value deemed by the Assessing Officer is as under: deemed by the Assessing Officer is as under: Property Amount Amount Office premises at Appejay House Office premises at Appejay House 1,23,36,609 1,23,36,609 Propety at Lavassa 92 Propety at Lavassa…

SUMAN GUPTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT -CC- 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3858/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…has estimated the deemed rent on the property at 7% of the value of property as income from house property. The stand of the Assessing Officer is also supported by the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of M/s Radha Devi Dalmia v. CIT, [125 ITR 134 (All)]. Accordingly, Assessing Officer applied the rate of 7% to the properties and worked out income from house property at ₹.16,881/- and added under the head income from house property. 22. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and filed detailed submissions which are reproduced in Page No. 8 to 27 of the Ld.CIT(A) order…

SUMAN GUPTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - CC- 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3857/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…has estimated the deemed rent on the property at 7% of the value of property as income from house property. The stand of the Assessing Officer is also supported by the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of M/s Radha Devi Dalmia v. CIT, [125 ITR 134 (All)]. Accordingly, Assessing Officer applied the rate of 7% to the properties and worked out income from house property at ₹.16,881/- and added under the head income from house property. 22. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and filed detailed submissions which are reproduced in Page No. 8 to 27 of the Ld.CIT(A) order…

UMESH A MISHRA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(2)(4), MUMBAI

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

ITA 870/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2022AY 2009-10
Section 143Section 250Section 28Section 30Section 37

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH MUMBAI SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER Mr. Umesh A. Mishra Income Tax Officer 512, Bld. No. 2, Dheeraj 8 (2) (4), Valley Compound, Near Aayakar Bhavan, Sai Baba Complex, v/s Churchgate, Goregaon (E) Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-63. PAN No. AAGPM0190F Appellant Respondent Assessee by None Department by Ms. Vranda U. Matkari Sr. AR Date of Hearing 01.08.2022 Date of 28.10.2022 Pronouncement ORDER PER KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL: This appeal has been filed by the assessee as against the order of learned CIT(A)-17, Mumbai [hereinafter referr…

M/S. NIRMAN HOMES,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(1),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 109/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Feb 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kumar Singh Yadav
Section 143(3)Section 23(1)Section 23(4)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80

…this case the assessee has also filed additional grounds of appeal. The additional ground No. 1 is taken along with grounds No. 1 and 2 of the grounds of appeal in the appeal memo filed by the assessee for adjudication. In the case f Radhadevi Dalmia cited in 125 ITR 134, the ALV of the flats is arrived at 7% of the investment cost of the project (WIP value) of Rs. 3,383,92,477/-. Thus, the ALV is arrived at Rs. 26,87,473/-. The amount of addition on account of deemed rent after considering standard deduction of 30% works out to Rs. 18,81,231/-. The same is therefore, added to the total income of the assessee for…

MARUTI N. NAVALE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in WTA No

ITA 705/PUN/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jun 2020AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl.

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P. BoraFor Respondent: Shri S. B. Prasad

…account of different investment. However, the deemed income was calculated invoking the provisions of section 23(4) of the Act. The Assessing Officer considered the deemed rent of Rs.3,22,000/- relying on the decision in the case of Radha Devi Dalmia vs. CIT, 125 ITR 134. 52. During the first appellate proceedings, as per the contents given in para 6.4 at page 19 of the CIT(A)’s order, the CIT(A) relied on the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court’s judgement in the case of Radha Devi Dalmia vs. CIT, 125 ITR 134 (All.-HC) and found it appropriate to consider 7% of the investment of Rs.26,75,000/- as deemed rent and accord…

MARUTI N. NAVALE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in WTA No

ITA 704/PUN/2014[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jun 2020AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl.

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P. BoraFor Respondent: Shri S. B. Prasad

…account of different investment. However, the deemed income was calculated invoking the provisions of section 23(4) of the Act. The Assessing Officer considered the deemed rent of Rs.3,22,000/- relying on the decision in the case of Radha Devi Dalmia vs. CIT, 125 ITR 134. 52. During the first appellate proceedings, as per the contents given in para 6.4 at page 19 of the CIT(A)’s order, the CIT(A) relied on the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court’s judgement in the case of Radha Devi Dalmia vs. CIT, 125 ITR 134 (All.-HC) and found it appropriate to consider 7% of the investment of Rs.26,75,000/- as deemed rent and accord…

MARUTI N. NAVALE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in WTA No

ITA 703/PUN/2014[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jun 2020AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl.

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P. BoraFor Respondent: Shri S. B. Prasad

…account of different investment. However, the deemed income was calculated invoking the provisions of section 23(4) of the Act. The Assessing Officer considered the deemed rent of Rs.3,22,000/- relying on the decision in the case of Radha Devi Dalmia vs. CIT, 125 ITR 134. 52. During the first appellate proceedings, as per the contents given in para 6.4 at page 19 of the CIT(A)’s order, the CIT(A) relied on the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court’s judgement in the case of Radha Devi Dalmia vs. CIT, 125 ITR 134 (All.-HC) and found it appropriate to consider 7% of the investment of Rs.26,75,000/- as deemed rent and accord…

MARUTI N. NAVALE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in WTA No

ITA 702/PUN/2014[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jun 2020AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl.

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P. BoraFor Respondent: Shri S. B. Prasad

…account of different investment. However, the deemed income was calculated invoking the provisions of section 23(4) of the Act. The Assessing Officer considered the deemed rent of Rs.3,22,000/- relying on the decision in the case of Radha Devi Dalmia vs. CIT, 125 ITR 134. 52. During the first appellate proceedings, as per the contents given in para 6.4 at page 19 of the CIT(A)’s order, the CIT(A) relied on the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court’s judgement in the case of Radha Devi Dalmia vs. CIT, 125 ITR 134 (All.-HC) and found it appropriate to consider 7% of the investment of Rs.26,75,000/- as deemed rent and accord…

MARUTI N. NAVALE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in WTA No

ITA 701/PUN/2014[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jun 2020AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl.

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P. BoraFor Respondent: Shri S. B. Prasad

…account of different investment. However, the deemed income was calculated invoking the provisions of section 23(4) of the Act. The Assessing Officer considered the deemed rent of Rs.3,22,000/- relying on the decision in the case of Radha Devi Dalmia vs. CIT, 125 ITR 134. 52. During the first appellate proceedings, as per the contents given in para 6.4 at page 19 of the CIT(A)’s order, the CIT(A) relied on the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court’s judgement in the case of Radha Devi Dalmia vs. CIT, 125 ITR 134 (All.-HC) and found it appropriate to consider 7% of the investment of Rs.26,75,000/- as deemed rent and accord…

MARUTI NIVRUTTI NAVALE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in WTA No

ITA 1061/PUN/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jun 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl.

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P. BoraFor Respondent: Shri S. B. Prasad

…account of different investment. However, the deemed income was calculated invoking the provisions of section 23(4) of the Act. The Assessing Officer considered the deemed rent of Rs.3,22,000/- relying on the decision in the case of Radha Devi Dalmia vs. CIT, 125 ITR 134. 52. During the first appellate proceedings, as per the contents given in para 6.4 at page 19 of the CIT(A)’s order, the CIT(A) relied on the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court’s judgement in the case of Radha Devi Dalmia vs. CIT, 125 ITR 134 (All.-HC) and found it appropriate to consider 7% of the investment of Rs.26,75,000/- as deemed rent and accord…

MARUTI NIVRUTTI NAVALE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in WTA No

ITA 1060/PUN/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jun 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl.

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P. BoraFor Respondent: Shri S. B. Prasad

…account of different investment. However, the deemed income was calculated invoking the provisions of section 23(4) of the Act. The Assessing Officer considered the deemed rent of Rs.3,22,000/- relying on the decision in the case of Radha Devi Dalmia vs. CIT, 125 ITR 134. 52. During the first appellate proceedings, as per the contents given in para 6.4 at page 19 of the CIT(A)’s order, the CIT(A) relied on the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court’s judgement in the case of Radha Devi Dalmia vs. CIT, 125 ITR 134 (All.-HC) and found it appropriate to consider 7% of the investment of Rs.26,75,000/- as deemed rent and accord…

MARUTI NIVRUTTI NAVALE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in WTA No

ITA 1059/PUN/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jun 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl.

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P. BoraFor Respondent: Shri S. B. Prasad

…account of different investment. However, the deemed income was calculated invoking the provisions of section 23(4) of the Act. The Assessing Officer considered the deemed rent of Rs.3,22,000/- relying on the decision in the case of Radha Devi Dalmia vs. CIT, 125 ITR 134. 52. During the first appellate proceedings, as per the contents given in para 6.4 at page 19 of the CIT(A)’s order, the CIT(A) relied on the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court’s judgement in the case of Radha Devi Dalmia vs. CIT, 125 ITR 134 (All.-HC) and found it appropriate to consider 7% of the investment of Rs.26,75,000/- as deemed rent and accord…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SINHAGAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY,, PUNE

Accordingly, additional ground No.3 by the assessee is allowed

ITA 16/PUN/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2075 To 2077 & 2110/Pun/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2009-10 Sinhgad Technical Education Society, S. No. 44/1, Vadgaon ( Budruk), Off. Sinhagad Road, Pune-411 041. Pan : Aabts9900Q. …....अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri S. N. DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar
Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 153C

…e and without prejudice to the above ground the CIT (A) has erred in – a) Holding that The appellant has paid excessive and unreasonable rent for the property owned by Shri M.N Navale relying on the decision of Allahabad High Court in case of Radhabai Dalmiya 125 ITR 134 thereby appellant has contravened the provisions of section I3(1)(c). b) Rejecting the valid contention made alternatively that to the extent of alleged excess amount of rent that only shall disqualify the exemption and that there cannot be wholesale denial of exemption. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the CIT (A) has erred…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SINHAGAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY,, PUNE

Accordingly, additional ground No.3 by the assessee is allowed

ITA 17/PUN/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2075 To 2077 & 2110/Pun/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2009-10 Sinhgad Technical Education Society, S. No. 44/1, Vadgaon ( Budruk), Off. Sinhagad Road, Pune-411 041. Pan : Aabts9900Q. …....अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri S. N. DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar
Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 153C

…e and without prejudice to the above ground the CIT (A) has erred in – a) Holding that The appellant has paid excessive and unreasonable rent for the property owned by Shri M.N Navale relying on the decision of Allahabad High Court in case of Radhabai Dalmiya 125 ITR 134 thereby appellant has contravened the provisions of section I3(1)(c). b) Rejecting the valid contention made alternatively that to the extent of alleged excess amount of rent that only shall disqualify the exemption and that there cannot be wholesale denial of exemption. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the CIT (A) has erred…

SINHGAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Accordingly, additional ground No.3 by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2077/PUN/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2075 To 2077 & 2110/Pun/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2009-10 Sinhgad Technical Education Society, S. No. 44/1, Vadgaon ( Budruk), Off. Sinhagad Road, Pune-411 041. Pan : Aabts9900Q. …....अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri S. N. DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar
Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 153C

…e and without prejudice to the above ground the CIT (A) has erred in – a) Holding that The appellant has paid excessive and unreasonable rent for the property owned by Shri M.N Navale relying on the decision of Allahabad High Court in case of Radhabai Dalmiya 125 ITR 134 thereby appellant has contravened the provisions of section I3(1)(c). b) Rejecting the valid contention made alternatively that to the extent of alleged excess amount of rent that only shall disqualify the exemption and that there cannot be wholesale denial of exemption. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the CIT (A) has erred…

SINHGAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Accordingly, additional ground No.3 by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2076/PUN/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2075 To 2077 & 2110/Pun/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2009-10 Sinhgad Technical Education Society, S. No. 44/1, Vadgaon ( Budruk), Off. Sinhagad Road, Pune-411 041. Pan : Aabts9900Q. …....अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri S. N. DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar
Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 153C

…e and without prejudice to the above ground the CIT (A) has erred in – a) Holding that The appellant has paid excessive and unreasonable rent for the property owned by Shri M.N Navale relying on the decision of Allahabad High Court in case of Radhabai Dalmiya 125 ITR 134 thereby appellant has contravened the provisions of section I3(1)(c). b) Rejecting the valid contention made alternatively that to the extent of alleged excess amount of rent that only shall disqualify the exemption and that there cannot be wholesale denial of exemption. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the CIT (A) has erred…

Showing 1–20 of 55 · Page 1 of 3