citedby: 1366239

Acit,, Chandigarh vs Sh. K.K. Jerath, Chandigarh on 8 July, 2021

• Jain Brothers & Another Vs. Union of India, 77 ITR 107 (SC) • Lalji Hari Dass Vs. ITO and Another, 43 ITR 387 (SC) • CIT Vs. Khalid Mohdi and Others, 165 ITR 685 (Andhra) • Gouranga Lal Chatterjee And Others Vs. ITO & Ors. 167 CTR 108 (Cal)

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 59 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Vision Steel Ltd., Chandigarh vs Dcit, Cc-1, Chandigarh on 16 February, 2023

(CIT v. Khalid Mehdi [1987] 165 ITR 685 (AP)).

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 42 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

World Sport Group (Mauritius) Ltd, ... vs Dcit (It) 4(3)(2), Mumbai on 24 March, 2023

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Lakshmi Venkateswara Kalyana Mandapam vs Income-Tax Officer on 25 February, 1994

5. Shri C.V. Surya Prakash Rao, the learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, contended that the income earned by the assessee cannot be 'property income' because the marriage hall was not let out for any long-term specific purpose. Marriage halls cannot be treated as house property. Marriage halls can be treated only as commercial assets. Rest rooms also are part of the same building and the charges collected from the occupiers of those rooms were only business income and not property income and as such the following decisions cited on behalf of the assessee, viz., Khalid Mehdi's case (supra), Phabiomal & Sons' case (supra), K. Rami Reddy & Sons' case (supra).

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 14 - Cited by 1 - Full Document