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

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Gopal Dass Estates & Housing Pvt.Ltd

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA - 581 / 2010HC Delhi20 Mar 2019
Section 260

…ir respective cases. A careful perusal of the said judgment shows that the point in fact is answered in favour of the Assessee and not against it. 51.1 Ms. Malhotra sought to rely on the decision in Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd. v. CIT (2015) 373 ITR 673 (SC) as supporting the case of the Revenue. However, this Court is not able to agree with the above submission. In the said case, the object of the Appellant Assessee company 2019:DHC:1680-DB ITA 210/2003 & connected matters Page 24 of 36 was to acquire and let out properties in the city. The re…

M/S. Servashanti Properties Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

ITA 1278/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Mar 2019AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani and Shri P.B. Parmar, ARsFor Respondent: Shri/Ms Sonia Kumar, Sr. D.R
Section 143(2)Section 23

…at the aforesaid property was held as stock in trade and any income derived from stock shall be taxable as business income. The ld. counsel has also placed reliance on the following judicial pronouncements:- (i) Chennai Properties and Investment Ltd. vs. CIT 373 ITR 673 (SC) (ii) CIT vs. Neha Builders 296 ITR 661 (Guj) (iii) ACIT vs. Haware Construction Pvt. Ltd. (2019) 101 taxman.com 168 (Mumbai Trib) dated 31st August, 2018. On the other hand, the ld. counsel has supported the order of lower authorities. I.T.A No. 1278/Ahd/2017 A.Y. 2013-14 Page No 4 M/s. Servashanti Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO 4. We have h…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Unitech Ltd., New Delhi

In the result this issue is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 311/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary CIT-D.R
Section 144CSection 36(1)(iii)

…red any expenditure in relation to the maintenance of the property, as such maintenance expenses have been borne by the tenants. In support, he has strongly relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chennai Properties vs CIT reported in 373 ITR 673 and Rayala Corporation vs. ACIT. 34. On the other land Ld. CIT(DR) strongly relied upon the order of the AO. 35. After hearing both the parties and on perusal of the impugned order it is seen that, nowhere it has been denied that the rental income by the assessee is from leasing of the premises and such rental income has been declared under the…

M/S. Unitech Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result this issue is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 6585/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary CIT-D.R
Section 144CSection 36(1)(iii)

…red any expenditure in relation to the maintenance of the property, as such maintenance expenses have been borne by the tenants. In support, he has strongly relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chennai Properties vs CIT reported in 373 ITR 673 and Rayala Corporation vs. ACIT. 34. On the other land Ld. CIT(DR) strongly relied upon the order of the AO. 35. After hearing both the parties and on perusal of the impugned order it is seen that, nowhere it has been denied that the rental income by the assessee is from leasing of the premises and such rental income has been declared under the…

M/S. Agache Associates, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes,

ITA 5008/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri Anil Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Ashima Neb, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…his order, department is in appeal before the ITAT in ITA No.1805/Del/2018. 6. The ld. AR relied on the orders of (i) Rayala Corporation P. Ltd. vs ACIT, SC, Civil Appeal No.6437 of 2016 dt. 11.8.2016; (ii) Chennai Properties and Investment Ltd. vs CIT (2015) 373 ITR 673 (SC); (iii) Sultan Bros (P) Ltd. vs CIT (1964) 51 ITR 353 (SC); (iv) New Savan Sugar & Gur Refining Co. Ltd. (1969) 74 ITR 7 (SC); and (v) CIT vs Shambhu Investments 263 ITR 143 (SC) for the proposition that intention of the taxpayer, either expressed or gathered from the circumstances, may provide a guiding test that the income arising from lett…

Global Perspectives Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7800/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2018AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Sh. Salil Aggarwal, Adv & ShFor Respondent: Sh. Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 24(1)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC” NEW DELHI SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year:2014-15 M/s Global Perspectives Assessment DCIT, Circle-1(1), Limited L-Block, Unitech Year: 2014- Gurgaon (Hr) House, South City-1, 15 Gurgaon (Hr) TAN/PAN: AAACG2857J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Sh. Salil Aggarwal, Adv & Sh. Shailesh Gupta, CA Respondent by: Sh. Surender Pal, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 25 09 2018 Date of pronouncement: 21 12 2018 O R D E R AMIT SHUKLA, J.M.: The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against the impugned order dated 27.10.2017 passed by Ld…

Shri Jaiprakash Khanchand Aswani, Surat vs. The Addl.CIT, Range-2, Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2237/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: C .M. Garg & O. P. Meenaआ सं अ

Section 22Section 23

…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 are 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…

Bakul Investments P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 2(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 444/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. S. Pannu, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 444/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year:2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri KiritKamdar, ARFor Respondent: Shri T. A. Khan, DR
Section 143(3)

…AR further submitted that the Hon’ble ITAT had set aside the order passed by Ld CIT(A) and remanded to the file of AO to decide afresh in the light of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chennai Properties and Investment Ltd. Vrs. CIT (2015) 373 ITR 673 (SC). 7. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied upon the orders passed by revenue authorities. 8. We have heard both the parties and we have also perused the material placed on record as well as the orders passed by revenue authorities. Before we decide the merits of the case, it is necessary to evaluate the orders passed by Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A…

DCIT - 4(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Genuine Commercial Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 5915/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ramlal Negi (Jm)

Section 131(1)

…assessee, if the letting was done in an organised manner with the intention to exploit it as commercial asset. In this regard, the Tribunal has taken support of the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chennai Properties & Investment Ltd (373 ITR 673). The Ld A.R also placed reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Rayala Corporation P Ltd (386 ITR 500), wherein also identical view has been expressed. 11. In the above cited cases, the respective assessees were owner of certain properties and have derived rental income therefrom. The AO assessed the same under…

ITO 10(2)(4), Mumbai vs. M.S. Luvish Projects (P) Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 1247/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1247/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Ito 10(2)(4) बिधम/ M/S. M.S. Luvish Projects Room No. 213/216A, 2Nd (P) Ltd. Vs. Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, 102, Sani Armaa, Raut Lane, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Near Iscon Temple, Juhu 400020. Vile Parle (W), Mumbai-93. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaecm2300C (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri D.G. Pansari (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Mahaveer Jain (Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 23.08.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12.10.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 12.12.2014 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -17, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2011- 12. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - "1 "Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Holding The Rental Receipts As Business Receipts Without Considering That The Assessee Has Received The Rent For Allowing User Of The A.Y.2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Mahaveer Jain (AR)For Respondent: Shri D.G. Pansari (DR)
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1247/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) ITO 10(2)(4) बिधम/ M/s. M.S. Luvish Projects Room No. 213/216A, 2nd (P) Ltd. Vs. Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, 102, Sani Armaa, Raut Lane, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Near Iscon Temple, Juhu 400020. Vile Parle (W), Mumbai-93. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAECM2300C (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue by: Shri D.G. Pansari (DR) Assessee by: Shri Mahaveer Jain (AR) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing: 23.08.2018…

ITO 12(1)(3), Mumbai vs. Balwas Realty and Infrastructure P.Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 1180/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1180/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Ito-12(1)(3) बिधम/ M/S. Balwas Realty & Room No. 145A, 1St Floor, Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 4Th Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Floor, Techniplex-1, Road, Mumbai-400020. Techniplex Complex, Veer Savarkar Flyover, Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400062. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacb2165L (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri D.G. Pansari (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Rajesh S. Shah (Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 23.08.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03.10.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 25.11.2016 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -20, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2013- 14. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - "1. On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Holding That The Income Earned From Letting Out The Building Is Chargeable Under The Head A.Y.2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh S. Shah (AR)For Respondent: Shri D.G. Pansari (DR)
Section 143(2)Section 44A

…Ld. Representative of the assessee has refuted the said contention and argued that the CIT(A) has decided the matter of controversy on the basis of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd. Vs. CIT (2015) 56 Taxmann.com 456 (SC) and on the basis of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shambhu Investment P. Ltd. Vs. CIT 263 ITR 143 (SC) therefore, the finding of the CIT(A) is not liable to be disturbed in the interest of justice. It is also specifically argument that the case of the assessee has duly been covered by the decision of the Hon’…

Housing Development & Infrastructure Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 5(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 5986/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Sept 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Dr. K. ShivaramFor Respondent: Shri Anadi Varma
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 80

…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…

Great Heights Infratech Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT, Central- 2, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2393/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Sept 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Hiren Mehta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeet Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 132Section 22Section 263

…come, the assessee- company does not have other activity. The assessee-company relied upon the judgments of Apex Court in the case of 4 ITA.Nos.2392 & 2393/Del./2018 Great Heights Infratech Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. Chennai properties and Investments Ltd. vs. CIT 373 ITR 673 (SC) and prayed that proceedings under section 263 of the IT Act, 1961 may be dropped. 3.1. The Ld. CIT, however, did not accept the contention of assessee and noted that the main object of the assessee company is construction and development of any type of properties, which is not same as in the case Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. vs CIT…

Great Heights Infratech Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT, Central- 2, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2392/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Sept 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Hiren Mehta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeet Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 132Section 22Section 263

…come, the assessee- company does not have other activity. The assessee-company relied upon the judgments of Apex Court in the case of 4 ITA.Nos.2392 & 2393/Del./2018 Great Heights Infratech Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. Chennai properties and Investments Ltd. vs. CIT 373 ITR 673 (SC) and prayed that proceedings under section 263 of the IT Act, 1961 may be dropped. 3.1. The Ld. CIT, however, did not accept the contention of assessee and noted that the main object of the assessee company is construction and development of any type of properties, which is not same as in the case Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. vs CIT…

Bip Developers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as Revenue are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 1214/KOL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Aug 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

Section 143(3)

…I.T.A. Nos 1214, 1215, 1216/KOL/2017 Assessment years 2006-07, 2008-09 & 2009-10 & I.T.A. Nos. 1357, 1358 & 1359/KOL/2017 Assessment years 2006-07, 2008-09 & 2009-10 Page 1 of 11 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA ‘D’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri P.M. Jagtap, Accountant Member & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member I.T.A. Nos. 1214, 1215 & 1216/KOL/2017 Assessment Year: 2006-2007, 2008-2009 & 2009-2010 BIP Developers Pvt. Limited,.........................................................Appellant Ground Floor, Building Bata, Bengal Intelligente Park, Block EP & GP, Sector-V, Salt Lake Electro…

M/S Raj Landmark Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3-2, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 242/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Aug 2018AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Vishal Gupta (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Roshanta Meena (JCIT)
Section 23(1)(a)

…nd immovable, would be taken to be ‘stock in trade’ and any income derived from such stocks cannot be termed as ‘income from property’. In support of his contention, he has relied on the following decisions: (i) Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. Vs CIT 373 ITR 673. (ii) Rayala Corporation Private Ltd. (2016) 386 ITR 500 (SC). (iii) M/s Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. Vs. CIT (2015) 42 SCD 651, wherein it was held that where the assessee company engaged in the activity of letting out properties and the rental income received was shown as business income, the action of treating the rental income as inc…

Ramesh R. Parekh, Mumbai vs. DCIT 7(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 726/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Shri Ramesh R. Parekh Vs. Dcit – 7(3)(1) A-502, Swapnalok, Dixit Road, Mumbai Vile Parle (E) Mumbai – 400 057 Pan/Gir No.Agppo473M Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 23

…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…

Sane & Doshi Enterparises, Mumbai vs. Jt CIT 17(3), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 998/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri. S.C. TiwariFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin, DR
Section 143(3)Section 24Section 48

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “E” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.998/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13) बिाम/ M/s. Sane & Doshi Jt. CIT 17(3) Enterprises, 1st floor, 12, Ali Chambers, Aayakar Bhavan, v. Tamarind Lane, Fort, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400023 Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ PAN : AAAFS6687D (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee by: Shri. S.C. Tiwari Revenue by : Shri V. Justin, DR सुनवाई की तारीख /Date of Hearing : 12…

Ambattur Infra Developers, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 7(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 689/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Aug 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.689 & 690/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 & 2014-15. Ambattur Infra Developers, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner No.86, E-2, Industrial Estate, Of Income Tax, Ambattur, Non Corporate Circle 7(1), Chennai 600 058. Chennai.

For Appellant: Ms. B. Jaisheila, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Sailendra Mamidi, PCIT
Section 194I

…agreements, their lordships held income to be assessable ITA Nos.689 & 690/18 :- 6 -: under the head income from business. Reliance was also placed on the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd vs. CIT, (2015) 373 ITR 673. 6. Per contra, ld. Departmental Representative submitted that by virtue of the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sultan Brothers Pvt Ltd (supra), East India Housing & Land Development Trust Limited, (supra), Karnani Properties Limited (supra), and S.G. Mercantile Corporation Private Limited (supra), even if main object of the a…

M/S.Oberon Edifices & Estates P. Ltd, Kochi vs. The Pr.CIT, Trivandrum

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 361/COCH/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. No. 361/Coch/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Oberon Edifices & Estates Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Oberon Mall, Income-Tax, Trivandrum. Nh Bye-Pass, Edapally, Kochi-682 024. [Pan:Aaaco 7942E]

Section 263

…d accordingly by the Assessing Officer in the scrutiny assessment completed u/s. 143(3) on 19/03/2016. This decision of the Assessing Officer was influenced by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of M/s. Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd. vs. CIT (373 ITR 673) I.T.A. No./361/C/2017 wherein the court held that the income shall be treated as ‘income from business’ in the context that the main objective of the company was ‘letting out property’. However, the facts and circumstances of the above case do not apply to the present case since ‘letting out of property’ was not an objective of the assessee as…