How many judgments cite Shambhu Investment (P) Ltd. v. CIT?

181 judgments on BharatTax cite Shambhu Investment (P) Ltd. v. CIT (263 ITR 143), spanning 2010 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Shambhu Investment (P) Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 22, Section 24, Section 14A, Section 2(13), Section 37(1).

Shambhu Investment (P) Ltd. v. CIT

263 ITR 143Supreme Court of India2003#528 most cited

What is Shambhu Investment (P) Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Income derived from letting out property along with incidental use of furniture, fixtures, and common facilities is assessable as 'income from house property' and not 'business income' when the prime object is merely to let out and not to exploit the property as a business asset.

181

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Shambhu Investment (P) Ltd. v. CIT · 263 ITR 143 · income from house property · business income · Section 22 Income Tax Act · Section 37(1) Income Tax Act · rental income classification · letting property with amenities · exploitation of property · dominant object letting · Section 2(13) business definition · income classification Supreme Court

Also reported as

129 Taxmann 70

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 22 Section 24 Section 14A Section 2(13)Section 37(1)Section 250 Section 57(iii)

Issues it is cited on

annual value section 24(a)section 22 disallowance under section 14a section 24 section 37(1)scrutiny assessment income from other sources section 14a salary section 80 transfer

Judgments citing Shambhu Investment (P) Ltd. v. CIT

Parija Construction Company Pvt. Ltd, Bhubaneswar vs. ITO, Bhubaneswar

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 650/CTK/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 Jan 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.S Saini

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep K.Jena, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR

Section 143(3)Section 147

…r found that the occupants were not separately charged for services rendered and that the prime object of the lease agreements was to let out for rental income. Relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sambhu Investment Pvt Ltd vs CIT, 263 ITR 143 (SC), the Assessing Officer held that the rental income was to be assessed as income from house property and not as income from business. Asse ssment Years: 2 00 6-0 7 & 20 08- 09 6. On appeal, ld CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. 7. Before me, ld A.R. of the assessee submitted that in assessment year 2002-03, the assessee…

V.N. Karbhatkar, Mumbai vs. D.C.I.T.-6(2), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 1838/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Dec 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain Shri V.N. Karbhatkar Income Tax Officer-19(3)(4) 4-5, Chapel Avenue Mumbai Vs. Chapel Road, Bandra (W) Mumbai 400050 Pan – Aacpk2651B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 234CSection 271(1)

…compensation on letting out the assessee’s bakery and shop premises was to be assessed under the head ‘income from house property’., Revenue placed strong reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Shambhu Investments Pvt. Ltd. 263 ITR 143 to hold that leave and licence agreements show that the main intention of the assessee for letting out the aforesaid properties was to earn rental income. In this regard, the learned A.R. of the assessee placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Dudhsagar Investments (P) Ltd. (2014) 47 taxmann.com 354 (Bombay…

Addl.C.I.T. RG.3(3), Mumbai vs. Stup Consultants Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 5973/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri. Nitin WaghmodeFor Respondent: Shri. S.H. Subramanian

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R.BASKARAN (AM) AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM) Assessment Year: 2009-10 The ACIT, Circle- 3(3), M/s. Stup Consultants Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 609, 6th Floor, 1004-5, Raheja Chambers, Aayakar Bhavan, 213, Free Press Journaj Marg, M.K.Road, Mumbai- 400 020. Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400 021. PAN- AABCS1945E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri. Nitin Waghmode Respondent by : Shri. S.H. Subramanian Date of Hearing: 17/10/2016 Date of Pronouncement: 17/10/2016 O R D E R PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM This appeal has been filed by the reven…

ITO WD 20(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Electronics & Engineering Co., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the C

ITA 1622/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1622/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Income Tax Officer M/S. Electronics & Engineering बनाम/ Ward 20(3)-1 Co., Eec House, Plot No.C-7, Vs. Room No.605, 6Th Floor Dalia Indl Est., New Link Road, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug Andheri (W) Mumbai – 400 012. Mumbai-400 053. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaafe 0594 M .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Mayur KishnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri G. Nanthakumar-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 22

…me as Income from business instead of Income from House Property is not accepted by the revenue since this issue has been settled by the Apex Court in favour of the revenue in its mark judgment rendered in the case of M/s. Shambu Investment Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (263 ITR 143). 2. The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the above grounds be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee, is engaged in business and filed its return of income on 31.08.2009 declaring total income to the tune of Rs.21.16 crores. The Assessing Officer completed the as…

Baluwala Builders, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 19(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2347/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S. Baluwala Builders, C/O. Abbas Y. Baluwala, A-902, Aristo Sapphire, 2Nd Hansabad Lane, Santacruz (W),Mumbai 400 054. Pan:Aaafb 4153D ...... Appellant Vs. The Addl. Cit 19(2), 3Rd Floor, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Mumbai .... Respondent Appellant By : Shri Ramesh Iyer Respondent By : Shri Deepak Ripote Date Of Hearing : 21/07/2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 21 /09/2016

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh IyerFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Ripote

Section 143(3)

…ixtures and furniture as seen from the agreements. There is no other activity undertaken by the Assessee, so as to construe, as a business proposition. The facts in this case are exactly similar to the facts in the case of Shambhu Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT 263 ITR 143(SC) decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein the income from the property was held to be assessable as 4 income from ‘house property’. This decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is in favour of the assessee, whereas the Ld. CIT(A) states in page 9 of the order mentions that the decision supports the contentions of the Revenue. We are of the con…

DCIT 24(3), Mumbai vs. Gundecha Builders, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the revenue for the Asst

ITA 6103/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajendra (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Mrs. Vidhisha KalraFor Respondent: Shri. Vimal Punmiya

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…-09, wherein vide para 6, the Tribunal has held as under:- “6. We have considered rival contentions and found from the record that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sambhu Investment (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2003) 263 ITR 143 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that wherein main intention of letting out the property or any portion thereof is to earn rental income, the income is to be assessed as income from house property and where the intention is to exploit the immovable property by way of complex commercial activities, the income should be assessee as inc…

Ravindra Sunku, Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 65/BANG/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri K.Y. Ningoji Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Renuka Devi,JCIT (D.R)

Section 234BSection 45Section 57

…ome as well as the service charges has to be given the same treatment as held by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Shambu Investments Ltd. (supra) which has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme 10 IT(I.T)A Nos.65 & 66/Bang/2015 Court cited in 263 ITR 143. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sultan Brothers Vs. CIT 51 ITR 353 while dealing with an identical issue has observed that the income realized by the owners by way of rental income from a building whether commercial or residential house is assessable under the head ‘income from house property’. The only exceptions are cases where le…

Priti Nimish Patel, Mumbai vs. DCIT - CC-25, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3070/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2016AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Ms.Aarti DeshmukhFor Respondent: Shri Neil Philip

Section 24

…action of AO, against which assessee is in further appeal before us. 4. I do not find any merit in the orders of lower authorities, insofar as the issue is directly covered by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shambhu Investments Pvt. Ltd.,263 ITR 143, wherein it was held that income realised by owner by way of rental income from a building is assessable under the head income from house property. Merely because in the assessment year 2009-10, the assessee has not filed any appeal against the treatment of income offered under the head income from house property as business income, will not prec…

DCIT 5(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Essar Properties Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 58/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 D C I T – 5(1)(2) M/S. Essar Properties Ltd. Room No. 568, 5Th Floor Essar House, 11, K.K. Marg बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan Mahalaxmi, Mumbai 400034 Vs. Mumbai 400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aaace0893Q

Section 143(3)Section 24

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, ए,मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “A”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2009-10 D C I T – 5(1)(2) M/s. Essar Properties Ltd. Room No. 568, 5th Floor Essar House, 11, K.K. Marg बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan Mahalaxmi, Mumbai 400034 Vs. Mumbai 400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) PAN. No. AAACE0893Q Shri Kailash Kanojiya राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue by "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Shri Sarad Desai 18/07/2016 स…

ACIT 17(2), Mumbai vs. Jagshi J Chheda, Mumbai

In the result, all of the appeals filed by the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6854/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 143(3)

…e the main intention appears to exploit the property and not to render any services. As such there are no services provided which are distinct from letting out of property. The Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of Shambhu Investments P. Ltd. vs CIT 263 ITR 143 has held that commercial space let out with facilities and amenities like security, power, fixtures etc. has to be taxed as Income From House Property. 6.4 On the basis of above facts, I find that the Hire Charges are inseparable and main intention of the appellant is to let out property with amenities. Hence the same requires to be taxed as Inco…

Jagshi J. Chheda, Mumbai vs. A.C.I.T. Circle - 17(2), Mumbai

In the result, all of the appeals filed by the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6733/MUM/2011[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2016AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 143(3)

M/S Prestige Garden Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. Pr. CIT, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 806/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri. Abraham P. Georgei.T.A No.806/Bang/2015 (Assessment Year : 2010-11) M/S. Prestige Garden Constructions P. Ltd, The Falcon House No.1, Main Guard Cross Road, Off Infantry Road, Bengaluru 560 001 .. Appellant Pan : Aabcp2901E V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle – 5(1)(2), Bengaluru .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Padamchand Khindha, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Sibichen K. Mathew, Cit Heard On : 25.05.2016 Pronounced On : 10.06.2016 O R D E R Per Abraham P. George:

For Appellant: Shri. Padamchand Khindha, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Sibichen K. Mathew, CIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…Business" and not as "Income from House Property" despite a specific agreement between the landlord and tenant contemplating a landlord tenant relationship and rental income being paid every month as held by the Apex Court in the case of Shambhu Investments (263 ITR 143)? ITA.806/Bang/2015 Page - 14 12. Their Lordship had followed the judgment in the case of CIT v. Velankani Information Systems (P) Ltd [(2013) 218 Taxman 88], and held that when the intention was to carry on the business of letting out commercial property and complex commercial activity resulting in rental income, then such rental income would…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Mr.Syed Mohammed Shabbir

ITA/567/2015HC Karnataka31 May 2016

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 143(3)Section 260

…Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bhoopalam Commercial Complex & Industries (P) Ltd. reported at (2003) 262 ITR 517 as well as the decision of 11 Calcutta High Court in case of Shambhu Investments Pvt. Ltd. reported at 263 ITR 143. 8. As such, the question for giving treatment to the income of the property of the assesee as that from ‘income from house property’ can be said as already concluded by aforesaid decision. The additional factual aspect is that for subsequent assessment year, the very property is assessed as the ‘income from house property’. Hence it cann…

Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S Prestige Estate Projects Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and

ITA 850/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 May 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Sibichan K Mathew, CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 24

…ould be treated as income from house property and not under the head “income from business” as claimed by the assessee. While doing so, the AO relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Shambu Investment Pvt. Ltd Vs CIT (2003) 263 ITR 143, wherein it has been held that income derived by the assessee by letting out the furnished premises on monthly rental basis to various parties along with furniture, fixtures, lights, air-conditioners etc., for being used as payable space and also provided them common services like watch and ward, electricity and water was assessable as income…

Prestige Estate Projects Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and

ITA 845/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 May 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Sibichan K Mathew, CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 24

Palm Court Buildings P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 1(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee may be treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3678/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Palm Court Buildings P. Ito 1(2)(4) Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. बनाम/ Flat No.6 2Nd Floor, 152, M.K. Rd. Vs. Rd. Churchgate Mumbai- Mumbai-400020 (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aaacp3434A "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Nishit Gandhi (Ar) Shri C.W. Angolkar (Dr) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 13/04/2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 29/04/2016 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order: आदेश / O R D E R Per Ashwani Taneja (): This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai-2 {(In Short ‘Cit(A)’}, Dated 22.02.2013 Passed Against

Section 143(3)

…acts of the case of the assessee need to be examined, in view of the guidelines given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment. He also placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shambhu Investment (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT 263 ITR 143 (SC). 3.6. We have gone through the orders of the lower authorities as well as order of Supreme Court. In our view, this appeal needs to be sent back to the file of the AO for proper verification of facts in view of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd. (supra). Thus, we send this appeal along w…

M/S. D.B.S. Financial Services P. Ltd vs. The ACIT Cir 3(1)

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

ITA 2144/MUM/2004[1993-1994]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2016AY 1993-1994

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ashwani Tanejaआयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No.2269/Mum/2004 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 1993-94 आयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No.3543/Mum/2004 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 1997-98 आयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No.3544/Mum/2004 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 1998-99 आयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No.4675/Mum/2004 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 1999-2000 आयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No.314/Mum/2008 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05 बनाम/ The Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Dbs Financial Services Income Tax, Range 3(1), Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Raheja Chambers, 2Nd Floor, Mumbai-400 020 213, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 आयकर अपील सं /I.Ta Nos.2144 To 2146 & 3541/Mum/2004 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years:1993-94 To 1995-96&1997-98 बनाम/ M/S. Dbs Financial The Dy. Commissioner Of Services Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Range 3(1), Vs. Raheja Chambers, 2Nd Aayakar Bhavan, Floor, Mumbai-400 020 213, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacd 0540P (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Department By: Shri Niraj Sheth

For Appellant: Shri Ashish HeliwalFor Respondent: Shri Niraj Sheth

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ , मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ASHWANI TANEJA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं /I.TA No.2269/Mum/2004 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 1993-94 आयकर अपील सं /I.TA No.3543/Mum/2004 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 1997-98 आयकर अपील सं /I.TA No.3544/Mum/2004 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 1998-99 आयकर अपील सं /I.TA No.4675/Mum/2004 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 1999-2000 आयकर अपील सं /I.TA No.314/Mum/2008 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05 बनाम/ The Dy. Commissioner of M/s. DBS Financial Servic…

I.T.O WD - 56(2), Kolkata vs. Salarpuria Soft Zone, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed and that of revenue are dismissed

ITA 813/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Feb 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Wasim Ahmed, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Sidharth Jhajahria, CAFor Respondent: Shri: Niraj Kumar, CIT-Dr

Section 143(3)Section 80I

…AY 2008-09 & 2009-10 from the list enclosed) are employed for providing various services and amenities to the users. Thus, the facts that the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) held that the income earned by Sambhu Investment (P.) Ltd. -Vs- CIT [2003] 263 ITR 143 is assessable as property income has no relevance in the facts and circumstances of the present case as because in that case the facts showed that the main intention was to earn rental income and that is why the entire cost of the property was recovered from the tenants by way of interest-free advance. In view of the foregoing, after carefully an…

M/S Salarpuria Soft Zone, Kolkata vs. J.C.I.T RG - 56, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed and that of revenue are dismissed

ITA 666/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Feb 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Wasim Ahmed, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Sidharth Jhajahria, CAFor Respondent: Shri: Niraj Kumar, CIT-Dr

Section 143(3)Section 80I

M/S Salarpuria Soft Zone, Kolkata vs. J.C.I.T RG - 56, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed and that of revenue are dismissed

ITA 665/KOL/2013[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Feb 2016AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Wasim Ahmed, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Sidharth Jhajahria, CAFor Respondent: Shri: Niraj Kumar, CIT-Dr

Section 143(3)Section 80I