1. Shambhu Investments Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (268 ITR 220)

Sukanta Samantray vs. Commnr.of Income Tax

ITA/106/2009HC Orissa07 Feb 2022

Bench: DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR (CJ),MR. JUSTICE R.K.PATTANAIK

M/S Rameshtha Construction, Jhansi vs. Dy. C.I.T., Circle-6, Jhansi

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

ITA 332/AGR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra02 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaassessment Year - 2010-11

…such interest. The decision of the Special Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in Lalsons [2004] 89 ITD 25 (Delhi) to this effect is affirmed. In holding as above, we differ from the judgments of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Rani Paliwal [2004] 268 ITR 220 and the Madras High Court in Chinnapandi [2006] 282 ITR 389 and affirm the ruling of the Special Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in Lalsons [2004] 89 ITD 25 (Delhi). (ix) Where, as a result of the computation of profits and gains of business and profession, the Assessing Officer treats the interest receipt as business income, then dedu…

ITO 3(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Bajaj Capital Ventures P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee as well as Revenue are partly allowed, as above

ITA 789/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negibajaj Capital Ventures Pvt. Ltd., 106/107, 10Th Floor, Bajaj Bhavan, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, 226 Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 Pan: Aaaca 3565F ...... Appellant Vs. Dy.Cit – 3(1)(1), Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 .... Respondent Dy.Cit – 3(1)(1), Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 .... Appellant

For Appellant: Shri V. MohanFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Singla

Section 143(3)

…perty’. In coming to such a decision, the CIT(A) noted the reliance placed by the Assessing Officer on the following judgments:- 1. Shambhu Investments Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, 263 ITR 143(SC), 2. Atmaram Properties P. Ltd., 85 ITD 86(Del) 3. Rani Paliwal vs. CIT, 268 ITR 220 (P&H) 3.2 Against such a decision of the CIT(A), assessee is in further appeal before us. Before us, the Ld. Representative for the assessee pointed out that leasing of property was one of the objectives of the assessee company and in this regard drew our attention to clause (9) of the objects incidental or ancillary to the attainment of main obj…

Bajaj Capital Ventures P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 3(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee as well as Revenue are partly allowed, as above

ITA 1257/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negibajaj Capital Ventures Pvt. Ltd., 106/107, 10Th Floor, Bajaj Bhavan, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, 226 Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 Pan: Aaaca 3565F ...... Appellant Vs. Dy.Cit – 3(1)(1), Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 .... Respondent Dy.Cit – 3(1)(1), Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 .... Appellant

For Appellant: Shri V. MohanFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Singla

Section 143(3)

…perty’. In coming to such a decision, the CIT(A) noted the reliance placed by the Assessing Officer on the following judgments:- 1. Shambhu Investments Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, 263 ITR 143(SC), 2. Atmaram Properties P. Ltd., 85 ITD 86(Del) 3. Rani Paliwal vs. CIT, 268 ITR 220 (P&H) 3.2 Against such a decision of the CIT(A), assessee is in further appeal before us. Before us, the Ld. Representative for the assessee pointed out that leasing of property was one of the objectives of the assessee company and in this regard drew our attention to clause (9) of the objects incidental or ancillary to the attainment of main obj…

Ashapura Developers, Mumbai vs. JCIT -Range 25(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby Allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7119/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7119/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S. Ashapura Developers Jt. Commissioner Of Income बनाम/ 101B, Hallmark Business Tax Range 25(1) Vs. Plaza, Opp. Gurunanak 1St Floor, Hospital, Sant Gyaneshwar Pratyakskar Bhavan, Marg, Bandra (East), Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400051 Mumbai - 400051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aanfa1971F

For Appellant: Shri Vijay C. KothariFor Respondent: Shri B.D.Naik

Section 14Section 143(1)Section 22Section 23

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ ‘ए’ मुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI "ी आर. सी. शमा", लेखा सद"य, एवं "ी अमरजीत "संह, "या"यक सद"य, के सम" BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7119/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/s. Ashapura Developers Jt. Commissioner of Income बनाम/ 101B, Hallmark Business Tax Range 25(1) Vs. Plaza, Opp. Gurunanak 1st Floor, Hospital, Sant Gyaneshwar Pratyakskar Bhavan, Marg, Bandra (East), Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400051 Mumbai - 400051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AANFA1971F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellan…

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi-V vs. Nectar Life Science Ltd

ITA/125/2009HC Delhi20 Oct 2011

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 80H

…erest. The decision of the Special Bench of the Income- tax Appellate Tribunal in Lalsons [2004] 89 ITD 25 (Delhi) to this effect is affirmed. In holding as above, we differ from the judgments of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Rani Paliwal [2004] 268 ITR 220 and the Madras High Court in Chinnapandi [2006] 282 ITR 389 and affirm the ruling of the Special Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in Lalsons [2004] 89 ITD 25 (Delhi). (ix) Where, as a result of the computation of profits and gains of business and profession, the Assessing Officer treats the interest receipt as business incom…

CIT vs. Nectar Lifesciences Ltd

The appeal is disposed of

ITA/1543/2010HC Delhi20 Oct 2011

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 260ASection 80Section 80H

…erest. The decision of the Special Bench of the Income- tax Appellate Tribunal in Lalsons [2004] 89 ITD 25 (Delhi) to this effect is affirmed. In holding as above, we differ from the judgments of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Rani Paliwal [2004] 268 ITR 220 and the Madras High Court in Chinnapandi [2006] 282 ITR 389 and affirm the ruling of the Special Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in Lalsons [2004] 89 ITD 25 (Delhi). (ix) Where, as a result of the computation of profits and gains of business and profession, the Assessing Officer treats the interest receipt as business incom…

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi XI vs. M/S Shahi Export House

Appeal is dismissed

ITA/106/2009HC Delhi06 Aug 2010

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL

Section 28Section 37Section 56Section 80H

…No. 106/2009 Page 4 of 7 of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in Lalsons [2004] 8 ITR 25 (Delhi) to this effect is affirmed. In holding as above, we differ from the judgments of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Rani Paliwal [2004] 268 ITR 220 and the Madras High Court in Chinnapandi [2006]282 ITR 389 and affirm the ruling of the Special Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in Lalsons [2004] 8 ITR 25 (Delhi). (ix) Where, as a result of the computation of profits and gains of business and profession, the Assessing Officer treats the interest receipt as business inc…

Commissioner of Income Tax-V N vs. Damanjit Singh

ITA/166/2000HC Delhi12 Jan 2007

…placed by the Department on the judgments of the High Courts interpreting Section 80HHC itself. These include that of the Madras High Court in K.S.Subbiah Pillai v. CIT (2003) 260 ITR 304 (Mad), the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Rani Paliwal v. CIT (2004) 268 ITR 220 (P& H), and the decisions of the Kerala High Court in Nanji Topanbhai v. ACIT (2000) 243 ITR 192 (Ker) and K.Ravindranathan Nair v. DCIT 2003 (262) ITR 669 (Ker). The contention is that once the interest income is categorized as ‘income from other sources’, it goes out of the ambit of Section 80HHC entirely. 6.4 On the second issue of…

1. Shambhu Investments Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

Also reported as

Judgments citing 1. Shambhu Investments Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT