Shantikumar Narottam Morarji v. CIT

27 ITR 69High Court1955#24128 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 22

Judgments citing Shantikumar Narottam Morarji v. CIT

Manoj Suresh Tatooskar, Pune vs. Circle 1(1), Pune

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

ITA 1729/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri R.Y. Balawade
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…f Dhadda Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO in ITA No.257/Mum/2015 order dated 16.08.2016 submitted that the Hon’ble Tribunal following the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Shantikumar Narottam Morarji Vs. CIT reported in (1955) 27 ITR 69 (Bom.) has held that since the immovable property in question was utilized by the partnership firm in which the assessee is a partner, therefore, no notional rent is required to be calculated on such immovable property. 7. On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative supported the order of ld.CIT(A). 4 Manoj Suresh Tatooskar 8. I have hear…

ACIT - 17(2), Mumbai vs. Moti Govind Bhatia, Mumbai

ITA 2348/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2018AY 2011-12
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri V. Vidhyadhar-DR
Section 143(3)Section 22Section 23

…in which the assessee is a partner has to be treated as the user for purpose of business of the assessee. The Hon'ble High Courts had followed the view earlier taken by the Hon'ble High Courts of Bombay in the case ofShantikumar Narottam Morarji v. CIT [1955] 27 ITR 69 in which it was held that when partnership carried on business, each partner thereof carried on that business and a partner thus carried on business although that business happened to be partnership business. Following these judgments, we hold that portion of the property used by the partnership firm in which assessee is a partner has to be exclude…

Dhadda Diamonds P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 5(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 257/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singhdhadda Diamonds Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 1208, Panchratna, Opera House, Ward-5(1)(3),Room No.569, Mumbai 400 004 Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai 400 021 Pan:Aaacd 0539 L Appellant .. Respondent .. Appellant By Shri Yogesh Thar Shri Faril Bhatt, Ars .. Respondent By Shri Durga Dutt, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing .. 16-08-2016 Date Of Pronouncement 16-08-2016 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 22

…this argument he took me through the case law of the Hon‟ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs Rasiklal Balabhai (1979) 119 ITR 303 (Guj.), wherein the decision of the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Shantikumar Narottam Morarji Vs CIT (1955) 27 ITR 69 (Bom) was considered and the same was answered as under:- 3 “7. Broadly, two points would arise for answering the question referred to us, namely, (i) is the assessee carrying on business? and, (ii) is he occupying the house property for purposes of such business? It is implicit that profits of such business, profession or vocation must be assessa…

Shantikumar Narottam Morarji v. CIT (27 ITR 69) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax