CEPT v. Shri Lakshmi Silk Mills Ltd.

20 ITR 451Supreme Court of India1951#1948 most cited

What is CEPT v. Shri Lakshmi Silk Mills Ltd. authority for?

Income derived from leasing a business asset is considered business income under Section 28 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

59

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CEPT v Shri Lakshmi Silk Mills Ltd · 20 ITR 451 SC · Section 28 · business income · leasing hotel · exploiting business asset · rental income · business operations

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 22Section 142(1)Section 255(4)Section 28(i)Section 10Section 12Section 24

Issues it is cited on

recognised provident fundsection 50bsection 43b(f)approved gratuity fundsection 40a(9)section 211wholly and exclusively for businesssection 35dslump salesection 32(1)(ii)domestic companyfull value of consideration

Judgments citing CEPT v. Shri Lakshmi Silk Mills Ltd.

South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd, Bilaspur(Cg) vs. JCIT, Range-1, Bilaspur(Cg)

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee as well as revenue are either allowed, partly allowed for statistical purposes or dismissed, in accordance with our observations herein above

ITA 201/BIL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.201/Bil/2012 (Ay : 2009-2010) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.401/Bil/2014 (Ay : 2010-2011) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.162/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2010-2011) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.115/Bil/2015 (Ay : 2011-2012) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.102/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2012-2013) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.103/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2013-2014) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.204/Rpr/2017 (Ay : 2014-2015) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.169/Rpr/2018 (Ay : 2015-2016) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.33/Rpr/2019 (Ay : 2016-2017) South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., Vs Jcit, Range-1, Bilaspur Seepat Road, Bilaspur Pan No. :Aadcs 2066 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.204/Bil/2012 (Ay : 2009-2010) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.382/Bil/2014 (Ay : 2010-2011) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.103/Bil/2015 (Ay : 2011-2012) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.98/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2012-2013) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.99/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2013-2014) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.188/Rpr/2017 (Ay : 2014-2015) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.171/Rpr/2018 (Ay : 2015-2016) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.54/Rpr/2019 (Ay : 2016-2017) Dcit, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur Vs South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., Seepat Road, Bilaspur Pan No. :Aadcs 2066 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ajit Korde, Advocate, Shri Ankur Goel & Shri Ankit Agrawal, Cas राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Debashish Lahiri, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 26/09/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/10/2023

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Korde, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR

…d be allowed. Ld. AR also placed following case laws to support his contentions :- Reliance is placed on the following decisions: • Universal Plast Ltd v CIT [(1999) 237 ITR 454 (SC)], copy placed as Attachment M1 • CEPT v Shri Lakshmi Silk Mills Ltd [(1951) 20 ITR 451 (SC)], copy placed as Attachment N1 • Scientific Instrument Co Ltd V CIT [(2011) 14 taxmann.com 157 (All)], copy placed as Attachment N2 • ITO v Ultravision Associates, [ITA No 337/Rjt/2013 dated 09.03.2016], copy placed as Attachment N3 14.7 Ld. CIT-DR on the other hand, relied on the orders of the authorities below. 14.8 We have considered the…

M/S Quality Apparel Exporters Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 11(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the Ground No

ITA 2352/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 2352 & 2353/Mum/2019 (A.Y: 2012-13 & 2013-14) M/S. Quality Apparel Vs. Ito -Ward -11(1)(1) Exports Pvt Ltd, Room No. 201, Unit No.4, Wicel Bldg, 2Ndfloor,Aayakar Seepz, Midc, Moral, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai Mumbai – 400020 400093 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacq1711F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Mr.T.Shankar.Dr Date Of Hearing 20.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 04.05.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: These Are The Appeals Filed The By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 250 Of The Act.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr.T.Shankar.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…ver crises condition is to be assessed as business income and not income from house property. The appellant further relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court namely CIT Vs. Vikram Cotton Mills Ltd (1988) 169 ITR 597, Cept Vs Shri Laxmi Silk Mills (1951) 20 ITR 451 and CIT Vs. Maheshwari Devi Jute Mills Ltd (1965) 57 ITR 36 and CIT Vs Vikram Cotton Mills Ltd. (1988) 169 ITR 597 and contended that rent income should not be taxed as Income from House Property. 4.3.2 After examining the explanation of the appellant and the contention of the Assessing Officer I am of the view that in the assessment order the As…

DCIT CC 4(2), Mumbai vs. Rockfort Estate Developers Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the Cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4091/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Cc-4(2) Vs M/S Rockfort Estate Room No. 1918, 19Th Developers Pvt Ltd Floor, Air India Bldg, 1,Leela Baug, Andheri – Nariman Point, Kurla, Mumbai – 400021. Mumbai – 400051. Pan/Gir No. : Aabcr7896K Appellant .. Respondent Co No. 72/Mum/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 4091/Mum/2019 A.Y 2014-15) M/S Rockfort Estate Vs Dcit, Cc-4(2) Developers Pvt Ltd Room No. 1918, 19Th 1, Leela Baug,Andheri Floor, Air India Bldg, – Kurla, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400051. Mumbai – 400021. Pan/Gir No. : Aabcr7896K Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Mr.Rahul Hakani.Ar Revenue By : Mr.S.N. Kabra.Dr Date Of Hearing 28.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25.04.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-52

For Appellant: Mr.Rahul Hakani.ARFor Respondent: Mr.S.N. Kabra.DR
Section 14Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 22Section 23Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

…to be of Real Estate Business and the rental income received by it is from operation of commercial complex including various amenities. Therefore, the AO placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Shri Laxmi Silk Mills Ltd. (20 ITR 451), Karnani Properties ITA No. 4091/Mum/2019 & CO No. 72/Mum/2021 Rockfort Estate Developers Pvt Ltd. Ltd. (82 ITR 547), National Storage P. Ltd. and other decisions of the Hon'ble Courts to conclude that the said rental income of Rs. 28,39,69,703/- is to be taxed under the head, 'Income from Business or Profession' and not under the head, 'Income…

Travancore Sugars and Chemicals Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/12/2008HC Kerala31 Mar 2022

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

…, the judgments reported in Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax, Bombay City v. Shri Lakshmi Silk Mills Limited2; Universal Plast Ltd v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calcutta3; East India Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd. v. Commissioner of 2 [1951] 20 ITR 451 (SC) 3 (1999) 5 SCC 189 ITA Nos.11/2008, 12/2008, 279/2010, 282/2010, 292/2010 -15- Income Tax, West Bengal, Calcutta4; Karanpura Development Co. Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal5; and Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City I, Bombay v. National Storage Pvt. Ltd., Bombay6 . 6. Mr.Jose Joseph argues that…

Travancore Sugars and Chemicals Ltd vs. Deputy Commssr;Income Tax, C-I, Thiruvalla

ITA/279/2010HC Kerala31 Mar 2022

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

…, the judgments reported in Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax, Bombay City v. Shri Lakshmi Silk Mills Limited2; Universal Plast Ltd v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calcutta3; East India Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd. v. Commissioner of 2 [1951] 20 ITR 451 (SC) 3 (1999) 5 SCC 189 ITA Nos.11/2008, 12/2008, 279/2010, 282/2010, 292/2010 -15- Income Tax, West Bengal, Calcutta4; Karanpura Development Co. Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal5; and Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City I, Bombay v. National Storage Pvt. Ltd., Bombay6 . 6. Mr.Jose Joseph argues that…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-11, Kolkata vs. West Bengal Housing Board (PAN Aaajw0019K)

In the result, the appeal fails and is

ITAT/298/2017HC Calcutta06 Dec 2021

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

For Appellant: Mr. P. K. Bhowmick, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Subhabrata Dutta. Adv
Section 260ASection 80I

…g the course of assessment proceedings and that the reason for rejecting the same as assigned by the assessing officer was incorrect. The CIT(A) rightly noted the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Calcutta National Bank Ltd. reported in (1959) 37 ITR 171(SC) wherein the Supreme Court held that “business” is a word of very wide connotation and applying the said decision to the facts of the case it was held 5 that the income should be treated as business income. The tribunal on its part, examined the correctness of finding recorded by the CIT(A) and approved by same. More importantly, the tribun…

ITO 8(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Tac Technosoft P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed to the extent indicated in the order

ITA 6959/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2021AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Mihir Tanna– Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Menon– Ld. DR
Section 144

…f the Memorandum of Association without factually verifying the inclusion of such receipts by the assessee in its accounts ignoring the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court's in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax Vs Calcutta National Bank Ltd. [1959] 37 ITR 171 (SC) that only the objects and clauses set out in the Memorandum of Association cannot be taken as the basis for heads of income to be assessed? (vii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Contractual Income of Rs.2,66,08,263/- not appreciating that by holding the cont…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Premier Tyres Ltd

ITA/929/2009HC Kerala19 Jul 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

For Appellant: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXFor Respondent: M/S.PREMIER TYRES LTD

…utes profits or gains of business or falls under any other head but would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. He relies on the judgments reported in Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax, Bombay City v Shri Lakshmi Silk Mills Ltd. (1951 20 ITR 451), Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow v Vikram Cotton Mills Ltd. [(1988) 169 ITR 597)], Rayala Corporation Pvt. Ltd. v Asst. ITA Nos.757/2009 and batch cases 24 Commissioner of Income Tax (2016) 386 ITR 500(SC)], Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd. v Commissioner of Income Tax (2015) 373 ITR 673 (SC)], Commr. of I…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Premier Tyres Ltd

ITA/758/2009HC Kerala19 Jul 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

For Appellant: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXFor Respondent: M/S.PREMIER TYRES LTD

…utes profits or gains of business or falls under any other head but would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. He relies on the judgments reported in Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax, Bombay City v Shri Lakshmi Silk Mills Ltd. (1951 20 ITR 451), Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow v Vikram Cotton Mills Ltd. [(1988) 169 ITR 597)], Rayala Corporation Pvt. Ltd. v Asst. ITA Nos.757/2009 and batch cases 24 Commissioner of Income Tax (2016) 386 ITR 500(SC)], Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd. v Commissioner of Income Tax (2015) 373 ITR 673 (SC)], Commr. of I…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Ptl Enterprises Limited

ITA/483/2009HC Kerala19 Jul 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

For Appellant: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXFor Respondent: M/S.PREMIER TYRES LTD

…utes profits or gains of business or falls under any other head but would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. He relies on the judgments reported in Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax, Bombay City v Shri Lakshmi Silk Mills Ltd. (1951 20 ITR 451), Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow v Vikram Cotton Mills Ltd. [(1988) 169 ITR 597)], Rayala Corporation Pvt. Ltd. v Asst. ITA Nos.757/2009 and batch cases 24 Commissioner of Income Tax (2016) 386 ITR 500(SC)], Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd. v Commissioner of Income Tax (2015) 373 ITR 673 (SC)], Commr. of I…

Synchem Chemicals (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 10(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2753/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2021AY 2010-11
Section 10Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 45

…0 of Rs 49.20 lakhs , from manufacturing operations. 6.3. We find that the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions in support of its contentions:- a) Decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CEPT vs Shri Lakshmi Silk Mills Ltd reported in 20 ITR 451 (SC) M/s. Lupin Investments Pvt. Ltd b) Decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sultan Bros (P) Ltd vs CIT reported in 51 ITR 353 (SC) c) Decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs New India Industries reported in 201 ITR 208 (Guj) d) Decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of New Savan Sugar & Gur Refinery Co. Lt…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Kenmore Vikas India (P) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2673/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleasstt. Year 2012-13

For Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 14Section 24

…e manufacture owing to heavy accumulated losses and thereafter let out plant and machinery of hire was to be assessed as business income or under the head income from other sources. The Supreme Court followed its earlier decision in Sri Laxmi Silk Mills Ltd. (20 ITR 451) to hold that the yield of income from a commercial asset, irrespective of the manner in which the assets were exploited 7 DCIT vs. Kenmore Vikas India (P) Ltd. by the owner of the business, would be business income. It was emphasized that the assessee was entitled to the assets to its best advantage which he might do, either by using it person…

The ACIT, Cochin vs. M/S.Ptl Enterprises Ltd, Cochin

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 84/COCH/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Jul 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Mritunjaya Sharma, CIT-DRFor Respondent: S/Sri.Joseph Marcose, Sr.Advocate &
Section 56(2)(ii)

…iculties, i.e. either by financially or for some other reasons is let out the land, plant and machinery to a third party for a limited period and receiving rent, such rent is to be treated as income from business. The cases relied upon by the assessee such as 20 ITR 451, 169 ITR 597, 195 ITR 3525, 138 ITR 18, 116 ITR 781, 266 ITR 106, 166 ITR 211, 211 ITR 370, 164 ITR 288 and 237 ITR 454 (mentioned in para 16 of this order) support the case of the assessee. In all these cases, the Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High Courts held that rental income received for a limited period by way of letting out plant and ma…

DCIT 10(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Plaza Hotels P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3405/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhdcit, 10(3)(2), Mumbai Vs Plaza Hotels Pvt Ltd 70-C, Nehru Road Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-99 Pan : Aaacp2117N Appellant Respondednt Appellant By Sh. H.N.Singh Cit-Dr & Sh. Manoj Kumar Sing Sr Dr Respondent By Sh. Arun G. Verma Date Of Hearing 05.09.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 05 -09-2019 O R D E R Per Pawan Singh: This Appeal By Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Cit(A)-17

Section 22Section 23

…um/2017 income of Rs. 7,80,000 received from S in the hands of the assessee was income from business under section 28 of the Income-tax Act, 1961." While holding so the Hon"ble High Court has referred to the cases viz,, CEPT Vs. Shri Lakshmi Silk Mills Ltd., 20 ITR 451 (SC), CIT Vs. Calcutta National Bank Ltd., 37 ITR 171 (SC), CIT Vs. Vikram Cotton Mills Ltd., 169 ITR 597 (SC), Sultan Brothers P, Ltd. Vs. CIT, reported in 51 ITR 353 (SCJ and in case of Universal Plast Ltd, Vs. CIT, 237 ITR 454 (SC). After considering various decisions as mentioned above, the Hon"ble High Court has held that the assessee has giv…

Plaza Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, 10(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2863/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singh Ay 2013-14 Ay 2014-15

Section 14A

…el). The income of Rs. 7,80,000 received from S in the hands of the assessee was income from business under section 28 of the Income-tax Act, 1961." While holding so the Hon"ble High Court has referred to the cases viz,, CEPT Vs. Shri Lakshmi Silk Mills Ltd., 20 ITR 451 (SC), CIT Vs. Calcutta National Bank Ltd., 37 ITR 171 (SC), CIT Vs. Vikram Cotton Mills Ltd., 169 ITR 597 (SC), Sultan Brothers P, Ltd. Vs. CIT, reported in 51 ITR 353 (SCJ and in case of Universal Plast Ltd, Vs. CIT, 237 ITR 454 (SC). After considering various decisions as mentioned above, the Hon"ble High Court has held that the assessee has giv…

M/S Sambhav Institutions (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-12(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1760/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 271(1)(c)

…ned. Though ordinarily business implies a continuous activity in carrying on a particular trade of a vocation it may also include activity which may be called "quiescent", in terms of Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT v. Calcutta National Bank Limited 37 ITR 171. In view of this decision, the Appellant pleads that it had carried on activities as detailed above and hence business activities are continued. 4. AY 2008-09: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) and AO have erred in disallowing an amount to the extent of Rs. 40,10,172/- by erroneously stating that the…

M/S Sambhav Institutions (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-12(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1759/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 271(1)(c)

…ned. Though ordinarily business implies a continuous activity in carrying on a particular trade of a vocation it may also include activity which may be called "quiescent", in terms of Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT v. Calcutta National Bank Limited 37 ITR 171. In view of this decision, the Appellant pleads that it had carried on activities as detailed above and hence business activities are continued. 4. AY 2008-09: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) and AO have erred in disallowing an amount to the extent of Rs. 40,10,172/- by erroneously stating that the…

M/S Sambhav Institutions (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-12(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1758/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 271(1)(c)

…ned. Though ordinarily business implies a continuous activity in carrying on a particular trade of a vocation it may also include activity which may be called "quiescent", in terms of Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT v. Calcutta National Bank Limited 37 ITR 171. In view of this decision, the Appellant pleads that it had carried on activities as detailed above and hence business activities are continued. 4. AY 2008-09: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) and AO have erred in disallowing an amount to the extent of Rs. 40,10,172/- by erroneously stating that the…

The ACIT, Cochin vs. M/S.Ptl Enterprises Ltd, Cochin

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 162/COCH/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Alok MitraFor Respondent: Sri.Abraham Joseph Markose
Section 56(2)(ii)

…iculties, i.e. either by financially or for some other reasons is let out the land, plant and machinery to a third party for a limited period and receiving rent, such rent is to be treated as income from business. The cases relied upon by the assessee such as 20 ITR 451, 169 ITR 597, 195 ITR 3525, 138 ITR 18, 116 ITR 781, 266 ITR 106, 166 ITR 211, 211 ITR 370, 164 ITR 288 and 237 ITR 454 (mentioned in para 16 of this order) support the case of the assessee. In all these cases, the Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High Courts held that rental income received for a limited period by way of letting out plant and ma…

The ACIT, Cochin vs. M/S.Ptl Enterprises Ltd, Cochin

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 161/COCH/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Alok MitraFor Respondent: Sri.Abraham Joseph Markose
Section 56(2)(ii)

…iculties, i.e. either by financially or for some other reasons is let out the land, plant and machinery to a third party for a limited period and receiving rent, such rent is to be treated as income from business. The cases relied upon by the assessee such as 20 ITR 451, 169 ITR 597, 195 ITR 3525, 138 ITR 18, 116 ITR 781, 266 ITR 106, 166 ITR 211, 211 ITR 370, 164 ITR 288 and 237 ITR 454 (mentioned in para 16 of this order) support the case of the assessee. In all these cases, the Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High Courts held that rental income received for a limited period by way of letting out plant and ma…