Dismissed

Commissioner of Income Tax- 2, v. M/S. Kalimati Investment Co.Ltd.

Bombay HC9 Oct 2014ITXA/1308/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This income tax appeal by the Revenue challenges the ITAT's order allowing the assessee's appeal. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Tribunal's finding that the Assessing Officer could not determine Annual Letting Value without specific circumstances was correct. Thus, no substantial question of law arose.

What did the court decide?

Nothing allowed; appeal dismissed with no costs.

Commissioner of Income Tax- 2, Vs M/S. Kalimati Investment Co.Ltd. — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2014)

906.itxa1308.12...

sbw

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1308 OF 2012

¶6

Commissioner of Income Tax-2

¶7

..Appellant

¶8

Versus - M/s. Kalimati Investment Co.Ltd. ..Respondent

¶9

Mr. Suresh Kumar for the Appellant. Mr. Atul K. Jasani for the Respondents.

¶10

CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI AND A. K. MENON, JJ.

¶11

DATE :- 9^th OCTOBER, 2014

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

1] The Appeal by the Revenue challenges the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, in Income Tax Appeal No.2706/Mum/2010 delivered on 9^th May, 2012.

¶14

2] The only question projected as substantial question of law is at page 3 of the paper book.

¶15

3] In relation to that, we find that the Tribunal has reversed the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and by relying upon the principle of law and which is laid down in several decisions including a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Commissioner of

¶16

Income Tax V/s. J. K. Investors (Bombay) Ltd. reported in (2001) 248

¶17

2 906.itxa1308.12...

¶18

ITR 723, Commissioner of Income Tax-12 V/s. Tip Top Typography in Income Tax Appeal No.1213 of 2011 and a Full judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Mani Kumar Subba reported in (2011) 333 ITR 838 .

¶19

4] After referring to both judgments, a Division Bench of this Court comprising of one of us pronounced a judgment on 8^th August, 2014 in batch of Appeals. We have held that the Annual Letting Value has to be determined and in terms of section 23(1)(a) with reference to the municipal rateable value. If that is found to be vitiated and for the reasons set out in our judgment, then, alone a departure can be made. The Tribunal has held that there were no circumstances or factors brought on record which would enable the Assessing Officer to determine the Annual Letting Value by disregarding the municipal valuation. He could not have assumed any other value at which the property would be let from year to year. In such circumstances and his assumption being contrary to law, the Tribunal was justified in allowing the Assessee's Appeal.

¶20

5] Such finding of the Tribunal does not raise any substantial question of law. The Appeal is devoid of merits and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.

¶21

(A. K. MENON, J.) ( S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. )

Commissioner of Income Tax- 2, v. M/S. Kalimati Investment Co.Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Commissioner of Income Tax- 2, v. M/S. Kalimati Investment Co.Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Commissioner of Income TAX-8, Vs M/S. Lexi Pen (India) Pvt.Ltd.

Commissioner of Income TAX-5 Vs the Standard Batteries Ltd.

The Commissioner of Income TAX-9. Vs M/S. Paramount Apparels Pvt.Ltd.

The C.I.T.Kolhapur. Vs Vasantdada Shetkari S.S.K.Ltd.

Commissioner of Income Tax - 2 Vs M/S. Indusind Bank Ltd.

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -23 (2) Vs Anand Automobiles