Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. v. CIT

373 ITR 673Supreme Court of India2015#195 most cited

What is Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Income from immovable property, such as unsold flats or shops, held by an assessee as stock-in-trade in their business of acquiring and holding properties is taxable as 'business income' and not 'income from house property'. Consequently, notional annual letting value under Section 23 cannot be attributed to such stock-in-trade.

381

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,735 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. v. CIT · Section 22 · Section 23 · business income · house property income · stock-in-trade · unsold flats · annual letting value · ALV · property developer

Also reported as

56 Taxmann.com 456

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 1961Section 14ASection 22Section 24Section 23Section 263Section 32

Issues it is cited on

annual letting valuesection 23(1)annual valuehouse property incomesection 35dsection 22put to usesection 45section 35profits and gains of business or professionsection 32revenue expenditure

Judgments citing Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. v. CIT

DCIT, Cir-12(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Bengal Ambuja Housing Development Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the both appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1514/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Oct 2019AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri A.L.Saini, Am]

Section 80ISection 80i

…e accepting the view taken by Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Neha Builders (supra). 44 I.T.A No.1514/Kol/2015 & ITA No. 1515/Kol/2015 A.Ys 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/s. Bengal Ambuja Housing Development Ltd. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Chennai Property (373 ITR 673) held that when the company is primarily engaged in business of construction and development, which is the main object of the assessee, ITA No. 7288, 7289 Mum 17 & 209 and 210 Mum 18-M/s Kanakia Spaces Pvt. Ltd. 12 the income derived by assessee would be “Income from Business”. On the same analogy in the case in hand, the assessee is engaged in t…

DCIT Cen Cir 1(2), Mumbai vs. Hiranandnani Palace Gardens P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4392/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negi

For Appellant: Shri B. Srinivas, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Chetan Karia &
Section 145A

…ddition on the ground that the development of property and sales thereof or leasing out the property is the business of the assessee by following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd., Vs. CIT (2015) [373 ITR 673] (SC) wherein it was held that no ALV can be assessed on estimated basis on the stock in trade held by the assessee by observing and holding as under: “5.5.9. Reading the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Neha Builders (supra) and in Supreme Court’s decision in Chennai Properties, and also applying the ratio of test of determination in S…

Third Eye Estate (I) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir. 15(3)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 6434/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Ravish Soodm/S Third Eye Estate (I) Pvt. Ltd. Acit Circle -15(3)(2) B-3301-3302, Oberoi Springs, 4Th Floor, 451 Aayakar Bhavan, Off Link Road, M.K. Road, Vs. Andheri (West), Mumbai – 400021 Mumbai – 400 053

For Appellant: Shri Dharan Gandhi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Amit Pratap Singh, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32Section 45

…commonly provided in the flats, shops and residential and commercial premises but the assessee can also let out the property. Therefore, in view of the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Chennai Properties And Investment Ltd. vs. CIT [2015] 373 ITR 673, we are of the view that this issue is no more res integra. We, therefore, confirm the order of the CIT(A) treating the income as “Income from business” in respect of the rent received. 4. We also do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) deleting the disallowance of claim of expenses amounting to Rs.44,33,565/- which has…

M/S. Goel Raisoni Associates, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 7, Pune

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1947/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Krishna GujrathiFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das
Section 143(3)Section 23Section 23(4)

…the case and taking support from the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of S.G. Mercantile Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 83 ITR 700 (SC) and Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 373 ITR 673 (SC), held the income of builder in respect of letting of properties is chargeable to tax under the head profits and gains of business or profession but not under the income from house property. Further, held that there cannot be any taxation to the effect when there is no income on such properties which were unsold. Therefore, we find that the f…

Basics It Solutions Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-4(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5764/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Basics It Solutions Acit Pvt. Ltd. G-2, Nizamuddin Vs Circle – 4 (1) West, New Delhi-110013 New Delhi Pan No.Aaccb5118K (Appellant) (Respondent)

…in object read with other objects clearly shows that the business of the assessee was to let out and lease the property. On such objects strong reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd. 373 ITR 673. 10. Per contra the DR strongly supported the findings of the CIT(A). 11. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the orders of the authorities below. The main objects and other object of the company have been mentioned elsewhere. In the light of the main object and the other object we do not find any merit in the observations of the CIT(A).…

M/S Jokhiram Durgadutt, Ranchi vs. DCIT Circle-1, Rnc

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 47/RAN/2018[14-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi30 Aug 2019

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.47/Ran/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Jokhiram Durgadutt, Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi Sarawgi House, J.J.Road, Upper Bazar, Ranchi-834001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aabfj 2200 Q (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. निर्धाऩिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.S.Paul, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.K.Mondal, Addl.Cit(Dr)

For Appellant: Shri P.S.Paul, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mondal, Addl.CIT(DR)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, रााँची न्यायपीठ, रााँची IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI श्री चन्द्र मोहन गगग, न्द्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री एऱ.पी.साहु, ऱेखा सदस्य के समऺ । BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JM AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, AM आयकर अपीऱ सं./ITA No.47/RAN/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/s Jokhiram Durgadutt, Vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Ranchi Sarawgi House, J.J.Road, Upper Bazar, Ranchi-834001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ PAN/GIR No. : AABFJ 2200 Q (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. निर्धाऩिती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri P.S.Paul, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri P.K.Monda…

Haware Infrastructure Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 15(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2543/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Bairagra (AR)For Respondent: Shri B. Srinivas (CIT-DR) &
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 22Section 254(1)

…021 Mum 2019-Haware Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Gujarat in the case of CIT Vs. Neha Builders Pvt. ltd. (2008) 296 ITR 661 (Guj), and further relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. Vs. CIT (2015) 377 ITR 673 (SC), had observed, that the income generated by an assessee who was engaged in the business of acquiring and holding properties from such source would be its ‘business income’ and not its income under the head ‘house property’. Also, we find that the Tribunal while disposing off the appeal in the case of the ‘sister concern’ of the assessee in H…

Vrinda Sharad Bal, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT- 21, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2846/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Smt. Vrindasharad Bal, A-7, Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax- Kamdar Building, Gokhale 21, Mumbai, Room No. 364, 3Rd Vs. Road, Dadar, Mumbai- Floor, Aayakarbhavan, M.K. Road, 400028. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aezpb8307E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Mihir Naniwadekar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. D.G. Pansari, DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Smt. VrindaSharad Bal, A-7, Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax- Kamdar Building, Gokhale 21, Mumbai, Room No. 364, 3rd Vs. Road, Dadar, Mumbai- floor, AayakarBhavan, M.K. Road, 400028. Mumbai-400020. PAN No. AEZPB8307E Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Mihir Naniwadekar, AR Revenue by : Mr. D.G. Pansari, DR Date of Hearing : 14/08/2019 Date of pronouncement : 28/08/2019 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM This is an appeal filed by the assessee. Th…

Maharshtra Airport Development Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5735/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am Maharashtra Airport Vs. Dcit Circle 3(2)(1) Room No.608, 6Th Floor Development Company Ltd., 08Th Floor, World Trade Aayakar Bhavan Centre, Tower No.1 M.K.Road, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 005 Pan/Gir No.Aadcm9623M (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 271(1)(c)

…s also decided the issue in favour of assessee. At the time of arguments the Ld. Representative of the assessee has also placed reliance of the case titled as Shreeji Exhibitors Vs. ACIT (2015) 42 ITR (T) 596 and Chennai Properties & Investment Vs. CIT (2015) 373 ITR 673. In the said cases it is specifically held that the main business of assessee is commercial exploitation of the properties then the rental income of the assessee is not liable to be treated as income from house property. Taking into account all the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the rental income to the tune of Rs.1,05,000/- is…

Unique Estates Development Co. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT -CC- 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 2811/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiita Nos.2811 & 2812/Mum/2018 Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay SawantFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Gubgotra
Section 143(3)Section 24

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “F”, MUMBAI Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Judicial Member ITA Nos.2811 & 2812/Mum/2018 Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Unique Estates Development DCIT CC 4(1), Co. Ltd. Vs. Mumbai. Construction House B- 2nd Floor, 623 Linking Road, Khar (W), Mumbai 400 052. PAN AAACU0699N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Sanjay Sawant Respondent By : Shri Rajeev Gubgotra Date of Hearing :07.08.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 22.08.2019 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member The captioned appeals filed by the asses…

DCIT 3 (1)(1), Mumbai vs. Banzai Estates Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 3688/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3688/Mum/2018 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2011-12) The Dy. Commissioner Of Banzai Estates Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, 49, Bajaj Bhavan, Nariman Point, Vs. Room No. 607, Aayakar Mumbai-400 021 Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) स्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aaacb6915C अपीलाथी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh, Cit Dr प्रत्यथी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri Rohit Golecha, Ar ुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13.08.2019 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2019 Aadosa / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar SinghFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Golecha, AR
Section 143(3)

…Karani Properties Limited vs. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 547 (SC). Further, Hon’ble Supreme Court 9 has also affirmed the decision of Sultan Bros. (P) Ltd. v. CIT, (1964) 5 SCR 807. They have further distinguished the case law of Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd 373 ITR 673 (SC) and Rayala Corporation (P) Ltd. For this Hon’ble Supreme Court relied on the Karanpura Development Co. Ltd. v. CIT, (1962) 44 ITR 362 and the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of East India Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd. v. CIT, (1961) 42 ITR 49 was distinguished. 7. In the given facts and circumstances and the decision…

M/S. Shree Balaji Ventures, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 7(3), Pune

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 402/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Aug 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vipin GujrathiFor Respondent: Shri N. Ashok Babu
Section 23Section 23(4)

…ade, income there from will be chargeable under the head `Income from house property’ and not as `Business income’. It is pertinent to note that such a legal position has undergone some transformation. In Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd. Vs. CIT (2015) 373 ITR 673 (SC), the assessee whose business was to acquire properties, let out certain properties and the rental income as received therefrom was declared as business income. The AO held such income to be chargeable to tax under the head “Income from house property”. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the deciding factor for determining as to whether the…

DCIT CC 3(4) Ce RG 3, Mumbai vs. Samir Narain Bhojwani, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 1124/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2019AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Yogesh A. Thar/ ChaitanyaFor Respondent: Shri Laxmi Vora Prasad Gude
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1124Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dy. Commissioner of बिधम/ Shri Samir Narain Bhojwani 1st Floor, Samir Complex, St. Income Tax, CC-3(4), Vs. Central Range-3 Andres Road, Opp. Holy Room No.1915, 19th Floor, Family Hospital, Bandra Air India Bldg, Nariman (W), Mumbai-400050. Point, Mumbai-400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AABPB9150H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue by: Shri Laxmi Vora Prasad Gude (DR) Assessee by: Shri Yo…

M/S M.S.Luvish Infoway Projects (P) Limited, Mumbai vs. Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1941/HYD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S M.S. Luvish Infoway Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Projects (P) Ltd., Mumbai Income-Tax, Circle – 16(2), Hyderabad. Pan – Aabcl0755F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Prateek JainFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…ades, curve, pave, macadamize, cement and maintain buildings, structure, hi-tech parks, houses, apartments & hospitals.” 5.2 In this regard, he relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd., [2015] 373 ITR 673 and Rayala Corporation Vs. ACIT, [2016] 72 Taxmann.com 149. As per the above decision, he submitted that the assessee’s lease rent can be charged to tax under the head ‘income from business’. Further, he relied on the decision in assessee’s own case from the ITAT, Mumbai. Further, he submitted that in AY 2014- 15, AO has accepted the contention o…

Rushabh Gems P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 5(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 7531/MUM/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ravish Soodrushabh Gems Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer-5(3)(1) 602/603, Prasad Chambers, Mumbai Vs. Opera House, Mumbai – 400 007 Pan – Aabcr3175M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R.K. Sinha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.G. Pansari, Sr.D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…shabh Gems Pvt. ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer-5(3)(1) (iii) On the faction in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in not following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Chennai properties and investment Ltd vs. CIT 373 ITR 673 (SC). (iv) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) has erred in upholding the order of the Assessing Officer treating the usage charges for machinery as house property income without appreciating the fact that it is not a case of rent sipliciter. What was given on hire was factory premises to the processo…

Kolte Patil I-Ven Townships Pune Ltd, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 14, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1238/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Jun 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali
Section 143(3)Section 22Section 23Section 23(1)

…that the Co-ordinate Bench of the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of C.R. Developments Pvt. Ltd., Vs. CIT in ITA No.4277/2012 order dt.13.05.2015, after considering the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Chennai Properties and Investment Vs. CIT (2015) 373 ITR 673 (SC) has held that on the flats which were unsold, which were neither given on rent nor the assessee had intention to let out the flats, no deemed rental income could be considered in assessee’s hands. We further find that the Co-ordinate Bench of Pune Tribunal in the case of M/s. Cosmopolis Construction (in ITA Nos.230 and 231/PUN/2018 dt.12.09.…

Maharashtra Airport Development Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Reg 3(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 3072/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3072/Mum/2014 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11) बनधम/ M/S. Maharashtra Airport Dcit, Range 3(2) Mumbai. Development. Company Vs. Ltd., 8Th Floor, World Trade Centre Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcm9623M (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri Nishant Samaiya (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Salil Kapoor/ Sumit Lalchandani

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor/ SumitFor Respondent: Shri Nishant Samaiya (DR)
Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80I

…s also decided the issue in favour of assessee. At the time of arguments the Ld. Representative of the assessee has also placed reliance of the case titled as Shreeji Exhibitors Vs. ACIT (2015) 42 ITR (T) 596 and Chennai Properties & Investment Vs. CIT (2015) 373 ITR 673. In the said cases it is specifically held that the main business of assessee is commercial exploitation of the properties then the rental income of the assessee is not 17 A.Y. 2010-11 liable to be treated as income from house property. Taking into account all the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the rental income to the tune of R…

DCIT- 15(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Haware Construction Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

Accordingly, the CIT(A) following the view taken by his predecessor deleted the addition made by the A.O during the year under consideration and allowed the appeal

ITA 3586/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodita Nos.3586 & 3578/Mum/2018 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Haware Construction Tax 15(2)(1), Private Limited Room No. 357, 3Rd Floor, 413-416, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Vardaman Market, Maharshi Karve Road, Sector-17, Vashi, Mumbai – 400 020 Navi Mumbai – 400 705

For Appellant: Shri. Manoj Kumar Singh, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Devendra Jain, A.R
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…h the view taken by the Hon‟ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT Vs. Neha Builders Pvt. ltd. (2008) 296 ITR 661 (Guj) and, further relying on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. Vs. CIT (2015) 377 ITR 673 (SC), had observed, that the income generated by an assessee who was engaged in the business of acquiring and holding properties from such source would be its „business income‟, and not its income under the head „house property‟. 11. Also, we find that the Tribunal while disposing off the appeals of the revenue in the assesses own case for A.Y 20…

Gemstar Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 30(1), Mumbai

In the result the ground No

ITA 5549/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Pawan Singh

Section 143(3)Section 23Section 24Section 254(1)

…dering the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ansal Housing Finance & Leasing Co. Ltd. (supra) which the AO relied upon and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 373 ITR 673, held that unsold flats which are in stock in trade should be assessed under the head 'business income' and there is no justification in estimating rental income from those flats and notionally computing annual letting value under Section 23 of the Act. While holding so the Coordinate Bench observed as under: - "3. The ld. AR placed the order of…

Nile Tech Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-18(2), New Delhi

ITA 7557/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble, Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Anil Bhalla, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Paramita M. Biswas, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 201Section 22Section 28

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘E’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT, SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL and SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.7557/Del./2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-15) M/s. Nile Tech Ltd., vs. ACIT, Asset No.8, 3rd Floor, Circle 18 (2), World Mark – 2, Aerocity NB-8, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 037. (PAN : AACCN3608E) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Anil Bhalla, CA REVENUE BY : Ms. Paramita M. Biswas, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 13.05.2019 Date of Order : 28.05.2019 O R D E R PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : Appellant, M/s. Nile Tech Ltd. (hereinafter referr…