← All Phrases

“Section 56(2)(iii)”

Section References (mined)Section 56Section 56(2)(iii)14 judgments

MRS ALKA PANDEY,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -25(2), MUMBAI

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

ITA 5650/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Mrs. Alka Pandey, Asst. Cit-25(2), Maitri – Plot No. 10, Jvpd Scheme, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Vs. Vile Parle (West), Bandra (East), Mumbai-400049. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Agepp 1076 H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Pravin Salukhe. Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Aditya Maheshwari, CA
Section 143(3)Section 24

There being no letting of the installation to the tenants. There being no letting of the installation, the requ installation, the requirements of section 56(2)(iii) had not irements of section 56(2)(iii) had not been met. Accordingly, the income derived by the assessee been met. Accordingly

TODI INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 8(3)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 895/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2024AY 2016-17
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 22Section 37

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘E‘ BENCH\nMUMBAI\nBEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER\n&\nSHRI RATNESH

INDO ALLIED PROTEIN FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 6(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 663/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "C" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri M.S. ShethFor Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 23Section 234ASection 234BSection 24Section 56(2)(iii)

premises together with plant & machinery as 'Income from House Property whereas the Assessing Officer treated the same as 'Income from Other Sources' under Section 56(2)(iii) of the Act holding that letting of building was inseparable from letting of plant and machinery/furniture; and therefore, the rent from letting

M/S ACTIVE SECURITIES LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

The appeals are allowed

ITA 2335/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Puneet Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 24

business or profession'; would be taxed as income from other sources' 10.6 In that view of the matter, as per the provisions of section 56(2)(iii) of the Act, rental income earned from letting out of a building equipped with various amenities/facilities would either be taxable as 'business income ... find logic in the contention of Ld. AR that even if the composite rent is treated as income from other sources under section 56(2)iii), the depreciation is clearly admissible in terms of section 57(ii) of the Act. His reliance on Jay Metal Industries

MICROSOFT INDIA (R&D) PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1640/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao & Parth, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 270ASection 36(1)Section 40Section 56

convince us that the lease deed in question is not composite and that the rental receipt does not answer the description under section 56(2)(iii) of the Act. We, however, do not subscribe to the views expressed by him in his written submission which are nothing but reiteration ... supra) the Tribunal recorded its unequivocal finding that the lease deed under consideration was composite one and that it answered the description under section 56(2)(iii) of the Act. Another objection of the Revenue that it is related party transaction has also been rejected by the Tribunal by saying

MICROSOFT INDIA (R&D) P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1483/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao & Parth, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 270ASection 36(1)Section 40Section 56

convince us that the lease deed in question is not composite and that the rental receipt does not answer the description under section 56(2)(iii) of the Act. We, however, do not subscribe to the views expressed by him in his written submission which are nothing but reiteration ... supra) the Tribunal recorded its unequivocal finding that the lease deed under consideration was composite one and that it answered the description under section 56(2)(iii) of the Act. Another objection of the Revenue that it is related party transaction has also been rejected by the Tribunal by saying

DELTA COLONIZERS LTD.,NEWDELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE -7(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed on ground no

ITA 1423/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, Adv
Section 24

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: B: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

SH. KESAR LAL BAIRWA,A-24, VARUN COLONY, MANDARA STAND, NEW SANGANER ROAD, MANSAROVAR, JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(4), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 381/JPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Ms Monisha Choudhary (JCIT)
Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 28Section 3Section 56(2)(iii)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

income declared by the assessee. On appeal, the ld. CIT (A) allowed part relief by holding that section 56(2)(iii) of the IT Act brings to tax interest on compensation or enhanced compensation and the same is taxable on receipt basis subject to deduction of 50% under section

ADDL CIT RG 10(2), MUMBAI vs. GEOMETRIC SOFTWAR SOLUTIONS CO. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, ground no

ITA 6219/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm M/S Geometric Software The Acit Solutions Company Ltd. Ward 10(2), [ Now Merged With Hcl Room No.432, 4Th Floor, Technologies Limited ] Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, 806, Sidharth, 96 Nehru Mumbai-400 020 Place, New Delhi 19 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aabcg 0066 A Co No. 157/Mum/2011 (Arising In Ita No.6219/Mum/2010 For A.Y. 2005–06) M/S Geometric Software Solutions Company Ltd. The Acit (Now Gemetric Ltd.) [ Now Ward 10(2), Room No.432, 4Th Floor, Merged With Hcl Vs. Technologies Limited] Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400 020 806, Sidharth, 96 Nehru Place, New Delhi 19 (Respondent) (Cross Objector) Assessee By : Shri Porus F. Kaka & Shri Manish Kanth, Ars‟ Revenue By : Shri Sumit Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.07.2022

For Appellant: Shri Porus F. Kaka &For Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar, DR
Section 10ASection 14A

Geometric software solutions co. ltd; A.Y. 05–06 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT

GEOMETRIC SOFTWARE SOLUTINS CO. LTD ( NOW GEMETRIC LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 10(2), MUMBAI

In the result, ground no

ITA 5975/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm M/S Geometric Software The Acit Solutions Company Ltd. Ward 10(2), [ Now Merged With Hcl Room No.432, 4Th Floor, Technologies Limited ] Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, 806, Sidharth, 96 Nehru Mumbai-400 020 Place, New Delhi 19 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aabcg 0066 A Co No. 157/Mum/2011 (Arising In Ita No.6219/Mum/2010 For A.Y. 2005–06) M/S Geometric Software Solutions Company Ltd. The Acit (Now Gemetric Ltd.) [ Now Ward 10(2), Room No.432, 4Th Floor, Merged With Hcl Vs. Technologies Limited] Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400 020 806, Sidharth, 96 Nehru Place, New Delhi 19 (Respondent) (Cross Objector) Assessee By : Shri Porus F. Kaka & Shri Manish Kanth, Ars‟ Revenue By : Shri Sumit Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.07.2022

For Appellant: Shri Porus F. Kaka &For Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar, DR
Section 10ASection 14A

Geometric software solutions co. ltd; A.Y. 05–06 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT

M/S. VECTRA ADVANCED ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 7(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2025/BANG/2018[2010]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jan 2022

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Nitish Ranjan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sankarganesh K, JCIT (DR)
Section 57

leasing of equipment is only of minor items such as Cranes, Aircompressor, power generator etc. It is relevant to quote provisions of section 56(2)(iii) of the I.T.Act, which reads as follow:- “where an assessee lets on hire machinery, plant or furniture belonging to him and also buildings

ACIT, CIRCLE- 29(1), NEW DELHI vs. THATAI CONSULTANCY SERVICES LLP, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeal of the revenue as well as cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 6515/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleasstt. Year 2015-16 Acit Vs. Thatai Consultancy Services Llp Cent. Circle 29(1) B-16, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi. Phase-Ii, New Delhi – 110 020 Pan Aajft1317Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri U.N. Marwah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Bhopal Singh, Sr. DR
Section 22Section 24Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(iii)

findings of the AO during the course of the assessment proceeding. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the provisions of section 56(2) (iii) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and in allowing appeal of the assessee by deleting addition of Rs. 6,50,24,511/- (Rs. 2 ... came to the conclusion that the rental income was of the nature of the composite rent and he invoked the provisions of section 56(2)(iii) of the Act relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sultan Brothers

MICROSOFT INDIA (R&D) PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2014-15 and 2015-16 is partly allowed

ITA 8229/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, Advocate; & MsFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal [CIT] – DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C

income received by the Assessee from letting of the premises in question had to be assessed as 'income from other sources' under Section 56 (2) (iii) of the Act and not as 'income from house property'?” 10. The Hon'ble High Court, while deciding the aforementioned question of law, observed ... arising from a building would not have arisen if the plant, machinery and furniture had not also been let along with it." 18. Section 56 (2) (iii) of the Act reads as under: 56. (2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sub-section

MICROSOFT INDIA (R&D) PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the grounds restored to the file of the Tribunal by the Hon'ble High Court are decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue

ITA 1479/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jun 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh[Assessment Year: 2011-12] & [Assessment Year: 2012-13]

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surendar Pal, CIT-DR
Section 254

income received by the Assessee from letting of the premises in question had to be assessed as 'income from other sources' under Section 56 (2) (iii) of the Act and not as 'income from house property'?” 10. The Hon'ble High Court, while deciding the aforementioned question of law, observed ... arising from a building would not have arisen if the plant, machinery and furniture had not also been let along with it." 18. Section 56 (2) (iii) of the Act reads as under: 56. (2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sub-section