Sharmila Tagore v. JCIT

93 TTJ 483Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2005#13068 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Judgments citing Sharmila Tagore v. JCIT

PADAM CHAND GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 35(1), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 7418/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Padam Chand Gupta, Vs. Assistant Commissioner 1-C Court Road Civil Lines Of Income Tax, Income Tax Delhi 110054 Circle 35(1) New Delhi Pan No. Aanpg5120C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 23

…l letting value. 7.1 We also find in the case of M/s. Suman Didwania Vs. ACIT (supra), Hon'ble Tribunal has held as under: "3. We have heard the parties. The Ld. Counsel placed his reliance on the decision of the ITAT in the case of Sharmila Tagore vs. JCIT 93 TTJ 483 and in the case of ITO vs. Gopichand P. Godwani 1 SOT 374 (Mum). The Ld. D.R. placed reliance on the orders of the authorities below. We find that the assessee's claim is covered by the decision of the ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Sharmila Tagore (supra) in the said case it is held that the maintenance charges paid by the assessee have to be deduc…

ROCKCASTLE PROPERTY PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. CIT(A)-10, MUMBAI

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 7377/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7377/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Rockcastle Property Private Ltd Ito-5(3)(1) 3Rd Floor, Sunama House Room No.21, 3Rd Floor B-Wing बनाम/ 140, August Kranti Marg Mittal Court, Nariman Point Vs. Opp. Shalimar Hotel, Kemps Corner Mumbai – 400 021. Mumbai – 400 026. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcr-9466-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Gopal Sharma-Ld. Ar Revenue By : Ms. Smita Verma – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 17/03/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 18/05/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Gopal Sharma-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Verma – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 23(1)(b)Section 24

…ed to by Ld.CIT(A) also supports the same view. The decision of this Tribunal in Township Real Estate Developers India Private Limited V/s CIT (supra) has been passed after considering the two decisions of Hon’ble High Courts. The case law of Sharmila Tagore (93 TTJ 483) as cited by Ld.AR, has already been distinguished therein. The other case laws as cited by Ld. AR primarily follow the ratio of Sharmila Tagore (supra). In any eventuality, we are inclined to follow our earlier view taken in the cited order as extracted above. 9. Therefore, on the facts & circumstances of the case, finding no infirmity in the im…

TRANSMARINE CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - 17 (3), MUMBAI

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

ITA 7001/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Oct 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaletransmarine Corporation Acit – 17(3) बनाम/ 15, Dubash House, J.N. Mumbai. Vs. Heredia Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aafft6088G .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwarlFor Respondent: Shri Amit Pratap Singh, CIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 23Section 23(1)(b)Section 24

…l letting value. 7.1 We also find in the case of M/s. Suman Didwania Vs. ACIT (supra), Hon’ble Tribunal has held as under: “3. We have heard the parties. The Ld. Counsel placed his reliance on the decision of the ITAT in the case of Sharmila Tagore vs. JCIT 93 TTJ 483 and in the case of ITO vs. Gopichand P. Godwani 1 SOT 374 (Mum). The Ld. D.R. placed reliance on the orders of the authorities below. We find that the assessee’s claim is covered by the decision of the ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Sharmila Tagore (supra) in the said case it is held that the maintenance charges paid by the assessee have to be deduct…

SCAFFOLD PROPERTIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(3), MUMBAI

In the result the ground

ITA 6749/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singhscaffold Properties Pvt. Ltd. Dcit-5(3) 373, Konark House, Veer Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Savarkar Road, Ground Floor, Mumbai-400020. Near Siddhi Vinayak Temple, Vs. Prabhadevi, Dadar (West), Mumbai-400028. Pan: Aagcs1847J Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Nitesh Joshi (Ar) Respondent By : Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 11.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2019

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi (AR)For Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh (DR)

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 23Section 234BSection 234CSection 254(1)

…dered while calculating annual retable value under section 23 of the Act in 4 ITA No. 6749 Mum 2013-Scaffold Properties Pvt. Ltd. support of his submissions the ld AR for the assessee further relied upon the decision of (1) Sharmila Tagore vs. JCIT [2005] 93 TTJ 483, ITAT, Mumbai] (2) Realty Finance & Leasing (P.) Ltd. vs. ITO (3) Shri Trilochan Singh Sahney vs. ACIT [ITA No. 5304/Mum/2008] (4) ACIT vs. Sunil Kumar Agarwal [ 8 ITR (Trib) 304, ITAT, Lucknow] (5) Dilnavaz Manek Daver vs. ITO [ITA No. 6072/Mum/2009] (6) Mr. Priya Muralidharan vs. ACIT [ITA No. 7345/Mum/2012] (7) M/s Jethmal Barthia vs. ACI…

S.C.BROTHERS,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 24(3), MUMBAI

In the result this ground of appeal is allowed

ITA 2992/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhm/S S C Brothers, Acit Circle-24(3) C.T.S No. 201, Raheja Mumbai. Titanium Western Express Highway, Goregaon (E), Vs. Mumbai-400063 Pan: Aarfs6197F Appellant Respondent M/S S C Brothers, Acit Circle-24(3) C.T.S No. 201, Raheja Mumbai. Titanium Western Express Highway, Goregaon (E), Vs. Mumbai-400063 Pan: Aarfs6197F Appellant Respondent M/S S C Brothers, Acit Circle-31(3) C.T.S No. 201, Raheja Mumbai. Titanium Western Express Highway, Goregaon (E), Vs. Mumbai-400063 Pan: Aarfs6197F Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Dr. K. Shivram Sr Advocate With Ms. Neelam Jadhav Advocate Respondent By : Shri V. Justin (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 06.06.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.07.2018 Order Per Pawan Singh;

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivram Sr Advocate with Ms. Neelam Jadhav AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 253Section 37

…f rent received for the purpose of calculating Annual Letting Value (ALV) as ALV is to be taken on the basis of rent received by owner. In support of his submission, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of Tribunal of Sharmila Tagore vs. JCIT 93 TTJ 483 (Mum), Realty Finance & Leasing P. Ltd. vs. ITO 5 SOT 348 (Mum) and Ultima Search vs. ACIT [2016] 75 taxman.com 205 and DCIT vs. Yogen D. Sanghavi ITA No. 466 Mum 2014 dated 01.11.2017. In alternative submission the ld AR for the assessee submits that notional deduction @30% allowable under section 24(a) has to be allowed on addition of Rs. 1…

RANJEET D VASWANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 12(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3481/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Mr. Vimal Punmiya, ARFor Respondent: Ms. R.M. Madhavi, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 23

…ses and recomputed the income from house property shown by the assessee 3 4. The assessee preferred an appeal against the order of the AO before the learned CIT(A). We find that the learned CIT(A) followed the order of the ITAT in the case of Sharmila Tagore 93 TTJ 483 and allowed the claim of maintenance charges paid by the assessee to the Society. However, in view of the specific provisions of the Act, the learned CIT(A) disallowed the claim of the assessee of brokerage expenses, legal and professional fees, bank charges and electricity charges. 5. Before us, the learned counsel of the assessee submits that b…

DHANO B VASWANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 12(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 3480/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, ARFor Respondent: Ms. R.M. Madhavi, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 23

…ssee of the above expenses and recomputed the income from house property. 4. The assessee preferred an appeal against the order of the AO before the learned CIT(A). We find that the learned CIT(A) followed the order of the ITAT in the case of Sharmila Tagore 93 TTJ 483 and allowed the claim of 3 maintenance charges paid by the assessee to the Society. However, in view of the specific provisions of the Act, the learned CIT(A) disallowed the claim of the assessee of brokerage expenses, legal and professional fees, bank charges and electricity charges. 5. Before us, the learned counsel of the assessee submits tha…

PEEPUL TREE PROPERTIES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 3(2), MUMBAI

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

ITA 6258/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2010-11 Peepul Tree Properties P. Ltd., Asst. Cit 5(1) C/O. Kalyaniwalla & Mistry, Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ Army & Navy Bldg. 3Rd Floor, M.K. Rd. Vs. 148, M.G. Rd. Mumbai- Mumbai-400001 (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aaecm6392E "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Nitesh Joshi & Shri M.M. Golvala (Ar) Shri C.W. Angolkar (Dr) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 13/04/2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order: 20/05/2016

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 23Section 24

…has stated that the assessee company reserves its right to claim common area maintenance charges amounting to Rs.3,70,62,516/- as deduction to arrive at the annual value u/s 23 relying upon the Mumbai Tribunal judgment in the case of Sharmila Tagore vs. JCIT 93 TTJ 483 (Del). It is an admitted fact that neither in the earlier years nor in the subsequent years this claim has ever been exercised by the assessee or has ever been allowed by the AO. During the assessment proceedings of the impugned year, the AO refused to grant this claim on the ground that there is no such provision u/s 23 or 24 to grant the benefit…