What is Smitaben N. Ambani v. CWT authority for?

The annual value of a self-occupied property, for both wealth tax and income tax purposes, is the reasonable rent expected from a hypothetical tenant. When using municipal ratable value, statutory deductions permissible under municipal law must be added back to arrive at this expected rent.

How many judgments cite Smitaben N. Ambani v. CWT?

44 judgments on BharatTax cite Smitaben N. Ambani v. CWT (323 ITR 104), spanning 2016 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Smitaben N. Ambani v. CWT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 23, Section 142(1), Section 143(2), Section 143(3), Section 22, Section 23(1)(a).

Smitaben N. Ambani v. CWT (323 ITR 104)

DCIT 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Naresh Chander Oberoi, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 5565/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Aug 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.1601/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2013-14) & आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5565/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2014-15) Acit – 3(2)(2) Shri Naresh Chander Oberoi, Room No. 674, 6Th Floor, बनाम/ 181 B Jolly Maker Tower A, No.1, 18T H Floor, Cuffe Parade Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Colaba, Mumbai – 400005. Mumbai – 400 020 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaepo-2381-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Revenue By : Ms. Bharti Singh- Ld. Dr Assessee By : Shri Anuj Kisnadwala - Ld.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 05/08/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 09/08/2019 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (): - 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Revenue For Assessment Years [In Short Referred To As ‘Ay’] 2013-14 & 2014-15 Contest The Order Of Ld. First Appellate Authority On Certain Common Grounds Of Appeal & Therefore, Disposed Of By Way Of This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala - Ld.ARFor Respondent: Ms. Bharti Singh- Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 23

…n it has been held that municipal rateable value is a recognized basis for determination of ALV. The said proposition has duly been approved by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT V/s Tip Top Typography [368 ITR 330] as well as in Smt. Smitaben N.Ambani V/s CWT [323 ITR 104] which has subsequently been followed by Hon’ble Court in number of decisions. Therefore, no infirmity could be found in the impugned order, in this regard. The other decisions of this Tribunal also support the said proposition. Additionally, no fault could be found in the reasoning of Ld. first appellate authority in paragraph 5.1.1 that the pro…

ACIT 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Naresh Chander Oberoi, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1601/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.1601/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2013-14) & आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5565/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2014-15) Acit – 3(2)(2) Shri Naresh Chander Oberoi, Room No. 674, 6Th Floor, बनाम/ 181 B Jolly Maker Tower A, No.1, 18T H Floor, Cuffe Parade Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Colaba, Mumbai – 400005. Mumbai – 400 020 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaepo-2381-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Revenue By : Ms. Bharti Singh- Ld. Dr Assessee By : Shri Anuj Kisnadwala - Ld.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 05/08/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 09/08/2019 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (): - 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Revenue For Assessment Years [In Short Referred To As ‘Ay’] 2013-14 & 2014-15 Contest The Order Of Ld. First Appellate Authority On Certain Common Grounds Of Appeal & Therefore, Disposed Of By Way Of This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala - Ld.ARFor Respondent: Ms. Bharti Singh- Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 23

…n it has been held that municipal rateable value is a recognized basis for determination of ALV. The said proposition has duly been approved by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT V/s Tip Top Typography [368 ITR 330] as well as in Smt. Smitaben N.Ambani V/s CWT [323 ITR 104] which has subsequently been followed by Hon’ble Court in number of decisions. Therefore, no infirmity could be found in the impugned order, in this regard. The other decisions of this Tribunal also support the said proposition. Additionally, no fault could be found in the reasoning of Ld. first appellate authority in paragraph 5.1.1 that the pro…

Rina Jain, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 6(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 547/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.547/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Rina Jain बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle 6(4), Air India Building, 19Th 82, Maker Chambers Iii Vs. Floor, Mumbai-400021. Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021. Ita. No. 430/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Dcit, Central Circle 6(4), बिधम/ Rina Jain Air India Building, 19Th 82, Maker Chambers Iii Vs. Floor, Mumbai-400021. Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpj188Ef (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala Revenue By: Shri D. G. Pansari सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30/07/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/07/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee As Well As Revenue Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 16.10.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-54, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2014-15. Ita. No.547/M/18 430/M/2018 A.Y. 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri D. G. Pansari

Section 143(2)

…LV where the flat was vacant during the year. In the case of DCIT vs. Laxmi Jain in ITA No.2118/M/2012 A.Y. 2009-10 the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal by following the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Smitaben N. Ambani vs. CWT, 323 ITR 104 High Court held that the ALV of the vacant flat has to be made on the basis of municipal ratable value and thus dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. The said decision of the Tribunal was affirmed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Laxmi Jain vide order dated 16.04.2018 on the ground that there is no substantial question o…

DCIT CC 6(4), Mumbai vs. Rina Jain, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 430/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.547/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Rina Jain बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle 6(4), Air India Building, 19Th 82, Maker Chambers Iii Vs. Floor, Mumbai-400021. Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021. Ita. No. 430/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Dcit, Central Circle 6(4), बिधम/ Rina Jain Air India Building, 19Th 82, Maker Chambers Iii Vs. Floor, Mumbai-400021. Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpj188Ef (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala Revenue By: Shri D. G. Pansari सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30/07/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/07/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee As Well As Revenue Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 16.10.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-54, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2014-15. Ita. No.547/M/18 430/M/2018 A.Y. 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri D. G. Pansari

Section 143(2)

…LV where the flat was vacant during the year. In the case of DCIT vs. Laxmi Jain in ITA No.2118/M/2012 A.Y. 2009-10 the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal by following the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Smitaben N. Ambani vs. CWT, 323 ITR 104 High Court held that the ALV of the vacant flat has to be made on the basis of municipal ratable value and thus dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. The said decision of the Tribunal was affirmed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Laxmi Jain vide order dated 16.04.2018 on the ground that there is no substantial question o…

Harsh A. Jain, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 6(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2013-14

ITA 441/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Harsh A Jain, The Deputy Commissioner Of 82, Maker Chambers Iii, Income Tax, Nariman Point, Central Circle 6(4), Mumbai - 400021 Vs. Air India Building, 19Th Floor, Pan: Afbpj0984J Mumbai - 400021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-2014 The Dcit, Cent. Cir.-6(4), Harsh Anand Kumar Jain, R. No. 1925, 19Th Floor, 82, Maker Chamber Iii, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021 Vs. Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Afbpj0984J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Harsh A Jain, The Deputy Commissioner Of 82, Maker Chambers Iii, Income Tax, Nariman Point, Central Circle 6(4), Mumbai - 400021 Vs. Air India Building, 19Th Floor, Pan: Afbpj0984J Mumbai - 400021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-2015 The Jt. Cit (Osd), Cent. Cir.- 6(4), Harsh Anandkumar Jain, R. No. 1925, 19Th Floor, 82, Maker Chamber Iii, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021 Vs. Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Afbpj0984J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Lata Pasulekar (AR)For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh (DR)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 23Section 23(1)(a)

…said order, which for the sake of convenience is reproduced as under: “We have considered rival contentions and found that the issue is covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Smt. Smitaben N. Ambani Vs. CWT, reported in (2010) 323 ITR 104 (Born), wherein it was held that the basis on which a self-occupied property is valued under rule 1BB of the Wealth-tax Rules and municipal ratable value is arrived at under the municipal law is the same i.e. "a reasonable amount of rent that can be expected by the owner from a hypothetical tenant". That while arriving at such reasonable amount o…

Asst CIT Cen Cir39, Mumbai vs. Harsh Anandkumar Jain, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2013-14

ITA 6837/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Harsh A Jain, The Deputy Commissioner Of 82, Maker Chambers Iii, Income Tax, Nariman Point, Central Circle 6(4), Mumbai - 400021 Vs. Air India Building, 19Th Floor, Pan: Afbpj0984J Mumbai - 400021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-2014 The Dcit, Cent. Cir.-6(4), Harsh Anand Kumar Jain, R. No. 1925, 19Th Floor, 82, Maker Chamber Iii, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021 Vs. Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Afbpj0984J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Harsh A Jain, The Deputy Commissioner Of 82, Maker Chambers Iii, Income Tax, Nariman Point, Central Circle 6(4), Mumbai - 400021 Vs. Air India Building, 19Th Floor, Pan: Afbpj0984J Mumbai - 400021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-2015 The Jt. Cit (Osd), Cent. Cir.- 6(4), Harsh Anandkumar Jain, R. No. 1925, 19Th Floor, 82, Maker Chamber Iii, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021 Vs. Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Afbpj0984J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Lata Pasulekar (AR)For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh (DR)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 23Section 23(1)(a)

…said order, which for the sake of convenience is reproduced as under: “We have considered rival contentions and found that the issue is covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Smt. Smitaben N. Ambani Vs. CWT, reported in (2010) 323 ITR 104 (Born), wherein it was held that the basis on which a self-occupied property is valued under rule 1BB of the Wealth-tax Rules and municipal ratable value is arrived at under the municipal law is the same i.e. "a reasonable amount of rent that can be expected by the owner from a hypothetical tenant". That while arriving at such reasonable amount o…

Rameti Devi Jain, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 39, Mumbai

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

ITA 3916/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Rameti Devi Jain, 82, The Assistant Commissioner Maker Chambers Iii, Of Income Tax, Central Circle Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai- 6(4), Air Building, 19Th Floor, 400021. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aabpj1887B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Mr. Chaitanya Anjaria, Dr Date Of Hearing : 09/05/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 27/05/2019

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Chaitanya Anjaria, DR

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

…e addition of Rs.1,59,206/- increasing the municipal rateable value. The crux of the argument is that such an enhancement is contrary to the provisions of law and non appreciation of facts in proper prospective. We find that Hon’ble jurisdiction High Court in 323 ITR 104 (supra) has thrown light on the issue. The decision in ITO vs Spearhead Properties Pvt. ltd. 46 SOT 208, in Tivoli Investment and Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. vs ACIT 130 ITR 521 and in ITO vs Hansa Motors Works. 46 SOT 160 has also discussed identical issue. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), while confirming the addition and enhancing th…

Suresh Shivlal Bhasin, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 25(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6583/MUM/2017[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2019AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh B. Adani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh, D.R

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

…s Harsh Jain ITA No. 1438 of 2016 dated 5.2.2019 and Pr CIT Vs Laxmi Jain ITA No. 1285 of 2015 Dated 16.4.2018. In both the decisions the Hon’ble High Court has followed its earlier decision in the case of Smt. Smitaben N. Ambani Vs Commissioner of Wealth Tax 323 ITR 104 and held that ALV of the flat has to be calculated as per municipal rateable value. The ld AR submitted that since the assessee has already offered to tax the ALV at MRV and also in the earlier year i.e. AY 2009- 10, the AO has estimated the gross annual value at Rs. 12,000/- and net addition was made of Rs. 7,426/- after allowing deduction of mu…

Rina Virendra Jain, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 398, Mumbai

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

ITA 3893/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negi

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.G. Pansari, D.R

Section 23

…LV where the flat was vacant during the year. In the case of DCIT vs. Laxmi Jain in ITA No.2118/M/2012 A.Y. 2009-10 the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal by following the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Smitaben N. Ambani vs. CWT, 323 ITR 104 High Court held that the ALV of 7 ITA Nos.3893 & 3844/M/2017 & ors. Shri Rina Virendra Jain the vacant flat has to be made on the basis of municipal ratable value and thus dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. The said decision of the Tribunal was affirmed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Laxmi Jain vide order dated 16.…

Marine Container Services, Mumbai vs. DCIT 12 (2), Mumbai

In the result this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical

ITA 4158/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Marine Container Services, Dy.Cit, Circle-17(2), Room No. 123, 1St Floor, 71, World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400005. Mumbai-20. Pan: Aaafm9838J Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri B.V. Jhaveri (Ar) Respondent By : Shri T.A. Khan (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 16.05.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.08.2018 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh;

For Appellant: Shri B.V. Jhaveri (AR)For Respondent: Shri T.A. Khan (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 23(1)(a)Section 253Section 254(1)

…No. 4158 Mum 2016 - M/s Marine Container Services different properties will now be determined by the Tribunal in accordance with the directions set out above. No order as to costs". 22. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Smitaben N. Ambani Vs. CWT 323 ITR 104 (Bom) in the context of Rule 1BB to the Wealth Tax Rules, which uses the same expression "the sum for which the property might be reasonably expected to let from year to year" as is found in Sec.23(1)(a) of the Act, held that rateable value as determined by the Municipal authorities shall be the yardstick. The Learned counsel for the assessee rel…

Harsh Anand Jain, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 39, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee and Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4242/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Shri Harsh Anand Jain Vs. The Deputy Commissioner 82, Maker Chambers Iii Of Income Tax, Central Nariman Point Circle-39, Room No.32(1), Mumbai – 400 021 Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai - 400020 Pan/Gir No.Afbpj0984J Appellant) .. Respondent) The Deputy Commissioner Vs. Shri Harsh Anand Jain Of Income Tax, Central 82, Maker Chambers Iii Circle-39, Room No.32(1), Nariman Point Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai - 400020 Pan/Gir No.Afbpj0984J Appellant) .. Respondent) Assessee By Shri Anuj Kisnadwala Revenue By Shri Omi Ningshen

Section 143(3)Section 23Section 24

…circumstances of the case and in law, tne Ld. CIT(A} was justified in holding that ratable value as determined by- the municipal authorities shall be the yard stick by following the order of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Smitaben N. Ambani Vs. CWT 323 ITR 104. By doing so he has ignored the decision in the following cases wherein it has been held that the annual letting value as determined by the municipal authorities is only one of the factors and the same can be ignored if it does not reflect the true ALV. These decision are: i. ITO Vs. Spearhead Properties (P) Ltd. 46 SOT 208 ii. Tivoli Investment…

Satypal Jaikumar Jain, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 39, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the

ITA 3965/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2010-11 Acit, Satyapal Jaikumar Jain, Cc-39, R. No.32(1), 82, Maker Chambers-Iii, बनाम/ Ground Floor, Nariman Point, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400021 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aabpj1888Q Assessment Year: 2010-11 Satyapal Jaikumar Jain, Acit, 82, Maker Chambers-Iii, Cc-39, R. No.32(1), बनाम/ Nariman Point, Ground Floor, Vs. Mumbai-400021 Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aabpj1888Q

Section 131

…rejected the AO's method of computation of ALV of the said two properties and upheld the assessee 's rateable value. For this, CIT(A) relied on various decisions including the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Smitaben N Ambani vs. CWT, 323 ITR 104 wherein it was held that rateable value of the properties determined by the Municipal Authorities shall be the yard stick. Aggrieved with the decision of the CIT (A), Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the above mentioned grounds. During the proceedings before us, Ld DR relied on various decisions to state that the ALV as determi…

ACIT CC 39, Mumbai vs. Satypal Jain, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the

ITA 3831/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2010-11 Acit, Satyapal Jaikumar Jain, Cc-39, R. No.32(1), 82, Maker Chambers-Iii, बनाम/ Ground Floor, Nariman Point, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400021 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aabpj1888Q Assessment Year: 2010-11 Satyapal Jaikumar Jain, Acit, 82, Maker Chambers-Iii, Cc-39, R. No.32(1), बनाम/ Nariman Point, Ground Floor, Vs. Mumbai-400021 Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aabpj1888Q

Section 131

…rejected the AO's method of computation of ALV of the said two properties and upheld the assessee 's rateable value. For this, CIT(A) relied on various decisions including the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Smitaben N Ambani vs. CWT, 323 ITR 104 wherein it was held that rateable value of the properties determined by the Municipal Authorities shall be the yard stick. Aggrieved with the decision of the CIT (A), Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the above mentioned grounds. During the proceedings before us, Ld DR relied on various decisions to state that the ALV as determi…

C.S.Watwani-HUF, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward 24(1)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 5736/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am C.S.Watwani-Huf Vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward 503, Neelam, 14Th B Road 24(1)(4), Mumbai Near Idbi Bank, Khar (West) Mumbai Maharashtra – 400 052 Pan/Gir No.Aaahc1144B Appellant) .. Respondent)

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

…twani HUF therefore the annual letting value (ALV) has to be the actual rent received of Rs.70,000/- as provided u/s 1.3 The said CIT(A) erred in not considering the following judicial decisions relied upon by the appellant: (i) Smt. Smitaben N Ambani Vs. CWT 323 ITR 104 (Bom) (ii) Premsudha Exports (P) Ltd., Vs. ACIT 110 1TD 158 (mum) 1.4 Without prejudice, the said CIT(A) erred in not considering the submission of the appellant that in any case ,the ALV of the said property for the vacancy period cannot exceed the Municipal Ratable Value as held in various judicial decisions. 2. The appellant craves leave to ad…

DCIT CC 6(4), Mumbai vs. Virendra Jain, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee and Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3666/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am Dcit Cc 6(4) Vs. Shri Virendra Jain R.No.1925, 19Th Floor 82, Maker Chamber Air India Building Iii Nariman Point Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aabpj1882E Appellant) Respondent) .. Shri Virendra Jain Vs. Acit Cc 6(4) 19Th Floor,Air India Building 82, Maker Chamber Iii Nariman Point Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aabpj1882E Appellant) .. Respondent) Revenue By Shri Vijay Mehta Assessee By Ms. N. Hemalatha

Section 143(3)Section 250(4)

…rejected the AO's method of computation of ALV of the said two properties and upheld the assessee's rateable value. For this, CIT(A) relied on various decisions including the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Smitaben N Ambani vs. CWT, 323 ITR 104 wherein it was held that rateable value of the properties determined by the Municipal Authorities shall be the yard stick. Aggrieved with the decision of the CIT (A), Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the above mentioned grounds. During the proceedings before us, Ld DR relied on various decisions to state that the ALV as determi…

ITO, Ward-36(1), Kolkata vs. Sri Raghu Nandan Modi, Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2186/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jun 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 17(2)Section 2(24)(iv)Section 28

…artment with a direction that the annual value of different properties will now be determined by the Tribunal in accordance with the directions set out above. No order as to costs". 22. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Smitaben N. Ambani Vs. CWT 323 ITR 104 (Born) in the context of Rule IBB to the Wealth Tax Rules, which uses the same expression "the sum for which the property might be reasonably expected to let from year to year" as is found in Sec.23(1)(a) of the Act, held that rateable value as determined by the Municipal authorities shall be the yardstick. The Learned counsel for the assessee re…

Jubiliant Enterprises P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. JCIT (OSD) Cen Cir 39, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee and the appeal of the

ITA 7282/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri G. S. Pannu & Sri Sanjay Gargthe Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Jubiliant Enterprises Pvt. Income-Tax, Central Circle- Ltd/., 11-B, B Wing, Mittal 6(4)[Old Cc 39], Room Towers, Nariman Point, No.32(1), Ground Floor, Mumbai 400001 Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Pan:Aaabcj 4688D Mumbai 400001 Appellant .. Respondent M/S. Jubiliant Enterprises Pvt. Ltd/., Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of 11-B, B Wing, Mittal Towers, Income-Tax, Central Circle- Nariman Point, Mumbai 400001 6(4)[Old Cc 39], Room Pan:Aaabcj 4688D No.32(1), Ground Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai 400001 Appellant .. Respondent Revenue By: Shri Prakash Patnade, Dr Assessee By: Shri Vijay Mehta, Ar Date Of Hearing: 23-06-2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 20-07-2016

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Patnade, DR

Section 14A

…is respect also referred to the following decisions: 1. Mrs. Sheila Kaushish Vs. CIT 131 ITR 435 (SC) 2. Diwan Daulat Kapoor Vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee 122 ITR 700 (SC) 3. CIT Vs. Moni Kumar Subba 240 CTR 97 (Del) (FB) and 4. Smitaben N. Ambani Vs CWT 323 ITR 104 (Bom) He further observed that whatever benefits were derived by the assessee form the interest free deposits that were duly reflected and offered for taxation in the return of income as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act. He further relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Tip Top Typography & Ors. passed…

ACIT CC 6(4), Mumbai vs. Jubliant Enterprises P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee and the appeal of the

ITA 7101/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri G. S. Pannu & Sri Sanjay Gargthe Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Jubiliant Enterprises Pvt. Income-Tax, Central Circle- Ltd/., 11-B, B Wing, Mittal 6(4)[Old Cc 39], Room Towers, Nariman Point, No.32(1), Ground Floor, Mumbai 400001 Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Pan:Aaabcj 4688D Mumbai 400001 Appellant .. Respondent M/S. Jubiliant Enterprises Pvt. Ltd/., Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of 11-B, B Wing, Mittal Towers, Income-Tax, Central Circle- Nariman Point, Mumbai 400001 6(4)[Old Cc 39], Room Pan:Aaabcj 4688D No.32(1), Ground Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai 400001 Appellant .. Respondent Revenue By: Shri Prakash Patnade, Dr Assessee By: Shri Vijay Mehta, Ar Date Of Hearing: 23-06-2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 20-07-2016

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Patnade, DR

Section 14A

…is respect also referred to the following decisions: 1. Mrs. Sheila Kaushish Vs. CIT 131 ITR 435 (SC) 2. Diwan Daulat Kapoor Vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee 122 ITR 700 (SC) 3. CIT Vs. Moni Kumar Subba 240 CTR 97 (Del) (FB) and 4. Smitaben N. Ambani Vs CWT 323 ITR 104 (Bom) He further observed that whatever benefits were derived by the assessee form the interest free deposits that were duly reflected and offered for taxation in the return of income as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act. He further relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Tip Top Typography & Ors. passed…

Ranjit H. Bhavnani, Mumbai vs. DCIT 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3698/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita Nos.8413 To 8415/Mum/2011 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2003-04, 2004-05 & 2008-09) Smt. Mala Ranjit Bhavnani, 3, Vs. Ito-12(2)(2), Mumbai-20 Buckley Court, 5, Wodhouse Road, Mumbai-400001 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aafpb 1108 B (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.3698/Mum/2012 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2007-008) Ranjit H. Bhavnani, 3, Buckley Vs. Dcit-3(3) Mumbai-20 Court, 5, Wodhouse Road, Mumbai-400001 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aacpb 8459 L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Nitesh Joshi याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Peeyush Sonkar सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 09/12/2015 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 31/03/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A), Mumbai, For The Assessment Years 2003-04, 2004-05, 2007-08 & 2008-09, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.143(3) Of The I.T.Act. 2. Common Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee In All The Years Under Consideration, Therefore, All The Appeals Were Heard & Are Now

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Peeyush Sonkar

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 23

…reme Court in the case of Mrs. Sheila Kaushish, 131 ITR 435, decision of Hon’ble Kolkata High Court in the case of Smt Prabhabati Bansali, 141 ITR 419, decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of M.V.Sonavala, 117 ITR 246 and Smt. Smitaben N. Ambani, 323 ITR 104. Reliance was also placed on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Shapoorji & Co.(Rajkot) Pvt. Ltd., order dated 3-7-2006 and decision of Hon’ble Kolkata High Court in the case of Podar Bros (P) Ltd. 240 ITR 925. In view of the above judicial pronouncements it was contended by ld. AR that the AO should have taken the actual re…

Mala Ranjit Bhavnani, Mumbai vs. ITO 12(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8415/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita Nos.8413 To 8415/Mum/2011 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2003-04, 2004-05 & 2008-09) Smt. Mala Ranjit Bhavnani, 3, Vs. Ito-12(2)(2), Mumbai-20 Buckley Court, 5, Wodhouse Road, Mumbai-400001 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aafpb 1108 B (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.3698/Mum/2012 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2007-008) Ranjit H. Bhavnani, 3, Buckley Vs. Dcit-3(3) Mumbai-20 Court, 5, Wodhouse Road, Mumbai-400001 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aacpb 8459 L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Nitesh Joshi याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Peeyush Sonkar सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 09/12/2015 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 31/03/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A), Mumbai, For The Assessment Years 2003-04, 2004-05, 2007-08 & 2008-09, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.143(3) Of The I.T.Act. 2. Common Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee In All The Years Under Consideration, Therefore, All The Appeals Were Heard & Are Now

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Peeyush Sonkar

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 23

…reme Court in the case of Mrs. Sheila Kaushish, 131 ITR 435, decision of Hon’ble Kolkata High Court in the case of Smt Prabhabati Bansali, 141 ITR 419, decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of M.V.Sonavala, 117 ITR 246 and Smt. Smitaben N. Ambani, 323 ITR 104. Reliance was also placed on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Shapoorji & Co.(Rajkot) Pvt. Ltd., order dated 3-7-2006 and decision of Hon’ble Kolkata High Court in the case of Podar Bros (P) Ltd. 240 ITR 925. In view of the above judicial pronouncements it was contended by ld. AR that the AO should have taken the actual re…

Smitaben N. Ambani v. CWT

What is Smitaben N. Ambani v. CWT authority for?

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Smitaben N. Ambani v. CWT

DCIT 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Naresh Chander Oberoi, Mumbai

ACIT 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Naresh Chander Oberoi, Mumbai

Rina Jain, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 6(4), Mumbai

DCIT CC 6(4), Mumbai vs. Rina Jain, Mumbai

Harsh A. Jain, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 6(4), Mumbai

Asst CIT Cen Cir39, Mumbai vs. Harsh Anandkumar Jain, Mumbai

Rameti Devi Jain, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 39, Mumbai

Suresh Shivlal Bhasin, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 25(1), Mumbai

Rina Virendra Jain, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 398, Mumbai

Marine Container Services, Mumbai vs. DCIT 12 (2), Mumbai

Harsh Anand Jain, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 39, Mumbai

Satypal Jaikumar Jain, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 39, Mumbai

ACIT CC 39, Mumbai vs. Satypal Jain, Mumbai

C.S.Watwani-HUF, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward 24(1)(4), Mumbai

DCIT CC 6(4), Mumbai vs. Virendra Jain, Mumbai

ITO, Ward-36(1), Kolkata vs. Sri Raghu Nandan Modi, Kolkata

Jubiliant Enterprises P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. JCIT (OSD) Cen Cir 39, Mumbai

ACIT CC 6(4), Mumbai vs. Jubliant Enterprises P.Ltd, Mumbai

Ranjit H. Bhavnani, Mumbai vs. DCIT 3(3), Mumbai

Mala Ranjit Bhavnani, Mumbai vs. ITO 12(2)(2), Mumbai