ACIT 13(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. SMRUTA ENGINEERING INDUSRIES P.LTD, MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found it appropriate to remand the issue back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) is to consider the company's main objects and the circumstances of renting out assets, along with relevant Supreme Court judgments.
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed the CIT(A)'s order which allowed the assessee to treat rental income from factory premises as business income, permitting depreciation and expenses. The Assessing Officer had classified it as income from house property.
What were the issues?
Whether rental income from factory premises should be treated as business income or income from house property, considering the company's objects and Supreme Court precedents.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show listHide 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.
- Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. v. CIT381 citing56 Taxmann.com 456 · 2015 · SC
- Rayala Corporation (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax22 citing72 Taxmann.com 149 · 2016 · SC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “J” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH
सुनवाई की तायीख / Date of Hearing : 12.01.2017 घोषणा की तायीख /Date of Pronouncement : 12.01.2017 आदेश / O R D E R PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM:
This appeal filed by the Revenue on 03.08.2016 is against the order of the CIT (A)-21, Mumbai dated 16.05.2016 for the assessment year 2011-2012. In this appeal, Revenue raised the following ground which reads as under:- “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) was justified in assessing the rental income of Rs. 1,08,00,000/- under the head of income from business and thus allowing the claim of depreciation and other expenses against the same without appreciating the fact that the rent agreement is for letting out the land and factory shed only.”
2. Before us, Ld Counsel for the assessee brought our attention to the above ground and submitted that the assessee earned income out of the business activity of renting out the factory premises, plant and machinery etc as a going concern and the same was because of tax under the head „profits and gains from the business or profession‟. The said claim of the assessee was accepted in the past and the later assessment years. However, Assessing Officer thrust on the assessee the head of „income from house property‟ and altered the claim of the assessee in this assessment year. On appeal, CIT (A) granted relief and restored the claim of the assessee. Aggrieved with the same, Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal.
More judgments on Section 14
- Infra Developers, Shivpuri vs Income Tax Officer, AshoknagarITA 454/AGR/2026[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central… vs Shri Jayantibhai Virjibhai Babariya, SuratWTA 2/SRT/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2015-16
- Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central… vs Shri Jayantibhai Virjibhai Babariya, SuratWTA 1/SRT/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2014-15
- Narayan Industries Global Limited, New Delhi vs DCIT Circle 16(1), DelhiITA 8422/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed24 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
- Manpreet Estates LLP, Mumbai vs ACIT, Central Circle 8(3), MumbaiITA 4386/MUM/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed11 Sept 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Sri Tatiparthy Venkata Swamy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 25 Oct 2026
- Piyush Shantilal Veera vs. State Of U.P.Allahabad · 23 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Pooja Shri Traders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1Madras · 23 Oct 2026
- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026