SHIBANI S. BHOJWANI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 3(4), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7452/MUM/2016Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 September 2019AY 2012-136 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the income was consistently treated as business income in earlier years, and no new facts emerged, the AO's inconsistent approach was not permissible. The income should be assessed as business income.

What were the facts?

The assessee treated license fees from composite letting of property (including furniture and fixtures) as business income. The AO and CIT(A) classified it as income from house property, disallowing depreciation.

What were the issues?

Whether composite letting of furnished property should be treated as business income or income from house property, and the impact of consistent past treatment by the department.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Not explicitly mentioned, but relates to classification of income under different heads.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “E”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh A.Thar, AR
For Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, DR

आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent 2. आयकर आयु�त(अपील) / The CIT(A), Mumbai 3. आयकर आयु�त / CIT, Mumbai 4. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, मुंबई / 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai गाड� फाईल / Guard file 6.

आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स�या�पत ��त //True Copy//

उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asst. Registrar) आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, मुंबई / ITAT, Mumbai

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →