Smarts (P.) Ltd. v. CIT, High

166 Taxmann 53High Court2008#19436 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2023.

Judgments citing Smarts (P.) Ltd. v. CIT, High

Ashok J Thapar HUF, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-62(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 7533/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shrianubhav Sharmaassessment Year : 2015-16 Shri Ashok J. Thapar Huf Vs. Dcit, A-3, Pamposh Enclave, Circle-62(1), New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aadha7372L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 24

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: ‘A’ : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRIANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shri Ashok J. Thapar HUF Vs. DCIT, A-3, Pamposh Enclave, Circle-62(1), New Delhi New Delhi PAN : AADHA7372L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Shri Somil Aggarwal, Adv. Revenue by : Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 01.11.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 30.11.2023 ORDER Per Anubhav Sharma, JM : The appeal is preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 26.07.2019 of Commissioner of Income Tax (…

Usha Manohar Shetty, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 18(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 3984/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09 Usha Manohar Shetty, Acit 18(3) 132 Marble Arch बनाम/ R.No.209, 2Nd Floor, Senapati Bapa Tmarg, Piramal Chamber, Parel Vs. Mahim Mumbai -400012 Mumbai-400016 (Revenue) (Respondent) P.A. No.Abbps2235F Assessee By Dr. K. Shivaram(Ar) Revenue By Shri Santosh Mankoskar (Dr)

Section 143(3)Section 269USection 27

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ,एफ,मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “F”, MUMBAI "ी संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी अ"वनी तनेजा, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member, and Shri Ashwani Taneja, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2008-09 Usha Manohar Shetty, ACIT 18(3) 132 marble Arch बनाम/ R.No.209, 2nd Floor, Senapati Bapa Tmarg, Piramal Chamber, Parel Vs. Mahim Mumbai -400012 Mumbai-400016 (Revenue) (Respondent) P.A. No.ABBPS2235F Assessee by Dr. K. Shivaram(AR) Revenue by Shri Santosh Mankoskar (DR) 24/11/2015 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 6/01/2016 आदेश क"…

Pragnesh Jayantilal Gangar, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 17(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2042/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.2042/Mum/2014 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year:2008-09) Pragnesh Jayantilal Gangar, बनाम/ Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax - Meher Villa, 17(2), Vs. 2Nd Floor, Piramal Chambers, 737 Parsi Colony, Dr.Ghanti Road, Lalbaug, Dadar T T Parel, Mumbai-400014 Mumbai-400012 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

Section 24Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ “सी” म ुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE S/SHRI B.R.BASKARAN, AM AND AMARJIT SINGH, JM आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.2042/Mum/2014 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year:2008-09) Pragnesh Jayantilal Gangar, बनाम/ Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax - Meher Villa, 17(2), Vs. 2nd floor, Piramal Chambers, 737 Parsi Colony, Dr.Ghanti Road, Lalbaug, Dadar T T Parel, Mumbai-400014 Mumbai-400012 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. स्थधमी रेखध सं./जीआइआय सं./PAN. :AACPG8895P अऩीरधथी ओय से / Appellant by Shri M C Naniwadekar प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent by Ms…

CIT vs. Neminath Industries Pvt Ltd

The appeal is dismissed

ITA - 42 / 2011HC Delhi17 Jan 2011

Section 24

…IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI . 17.01.2011 . Present: None. . +ITA No.42/2011 . . Some rentals were received by the assessee and the rental income was shown as ?income from house property? on which 30% deduction under Section 24 of the Income Tax Act was claimed. Assessing Officer disallowed the said deduction treating it as ?business income?. The CIT(A) reversed the decision of the Assessing Officer holding it to be a ?rental income? and not ?business income? and that order is upheld by the ITAT observing as under: . ?6. We have heard both the counsels and perused…