Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. v. CIT

DCIT 1(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Tilerra Landpro LLP, Mumbai

…आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, मुंबई अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई “जेजेजेजे” खंडपीठ मुंबई खंडपीठ खंडपीठ मेमेमेमे खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“J”Bench Mumbai सव"ी राजे"",लेखा सद"य एवं अमरजीत "सह, "याियक सद"य Before S/Sh.Rajendra,Accountant Member and Amarjit Singh,Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./5534/Mum/2016,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./5536/Mum/2016,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2011-12 वष" आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./5535/Mum/2016,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /A…

ITO 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Arihant Estates Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Bleo/O. Income Tax Officer 2(1)(1) V. M/S. Arihant Estates Pvt. Ltd., 5Th 2Nd Floor, Kothari House, 57, Room No. 543, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Oak Lane, Fort, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai – 400 023

…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 5 M/s. Arihant Estates Pvt. Ltd value under Section 23 of the Act. While holding so the Coordinate Bench observed as under: - “3…

Sarang Property Developers P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, Ground of appeal raised by assessee is

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Sarang Property Developers Acit, Central Circle 4(1) Pvt. Ltd. 215, Atrium, 10Th Floor, Air India Building, 19Th Floor, Nariman Point, Near Marriot Courtyard Hotel, Vs. Andheri-Kurla Road, Andheri Mumbai. (E), Mumbai-400093. Pan: Aadcs6382B Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Anuj Kisnadwala (Ar) Respondent By : Shri Virender Singh (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.06.2018 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh;

…sal Housing Financing & Leasing Co. Ltd. (supra), we ITA No. 5620 Mum 16-Ms Sarang Property Developers Pvt. Ltd. are accepting the view taken by Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Neha Builders (supra). 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, the income derived by assessee would be “Income from Business”. On the same analogy in the case in hand, the assessee is engaged in the business of construction and development, which is the main business of t…

Saidarshan Business Centres P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 8(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Saidarshan Business Acit -8(1)(2), Centres Pvt. Ltd., 405-408, Mumbai. Navbharat Estate, B-Wing, Vs. Zakaria Bunder Road, Sewri(W), Mumbai-400015. Pan: Aaacs5801J Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Anuj Kisnadwala (Ar) Respondent By : Ms. Arju Garodia (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 19.06.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.06.2018 Orderunder Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh;

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s Saidarshan Business ACIT -8(1)(2), Centres Pvt. Ltd., 405-408, Mumbai. Navbharat Estate, B-Wing, Vs. Zakaria Bunder Road, Sewri(W), Mumbai-400015. PAN: AAACS5801J Appellant Respondent Appellant by : Shri Anuj Kisnadwala (AR) Respondent by : Ms. Arju Garodia (DR) Date of Hearing : 19.06.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 19.06.2018 ORDERUNDER SECTION 254(1)OF INCOME TAX ACT PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of ld. Commis…

Elcome Properties P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT 10(3), Mumbai

The appeals are disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order in Civil Appeal No

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2011-12 Elcome Properties Private Ltd. Dcit-10(3), 901/902, 9Th Floor, Great Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ Eastern Summit A, Plot No.56, Queens Road, Vs. Sector No.15, Cbd Belapur, Mumbai Navi Mumbai-400614 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aabce8665M

…cision was arrived at on the basis of main objective of the company and found that letting out of the property was not the object of the company at all. In that situation, a particular decision was arrived at. Whereas, in the case of Chennai Properties (2015) 373 ITR 673 (Supreme Court), vide order date 09/04/2015, the main objects of the assessee was acquiring/holding the property and to derive rental income for such property. It was held that the income is taxable as business income. The Hon'ble Apex Court also considered the decision in Karanpura Development Company Ltd vs DCIT (1962) 44 ITR 362 (Supreme Co…

The Bharat Line Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 2(1)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singh: (A.Y : 2012-13)

…e assessee by way of lease/leave and licence of the premises. As per the assessee, such receipts are assessable as ‘Business Income’ following the ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chennai Properties and Investment Ltd. vs CIT, 373 ITR 673 (SC) and M/s. Rayala Corporation Pvt. Ltd. vs ACIT, 386 ITR 500 (SC), whereas the stand of the Revenue is that the same is liable to be assessed under the head ‘Income from House Property’. 4. On this aspect, the learned representative for the assessee pointed out that the CIT(A) dismissed the plea of the assessee primarily on the 3 The Bharat L…

Pennwalt Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 7(1), Mumbai

The appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G. Manjunatha, Am

…y, the Assessing Officer’s action is confirmed and the ground raised on this issue is rejected.” 5. The learned Counsel for the assessee only relied on the case law of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Case of Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd. v. CIT [2015] 373 ITR 673 (SC) , apart from factual aspect he stated that the issue is covered. After hearing the learned Sr. Departmental Representative and assessee’s Counsel, we are of the view that the issue is covered in favour of assessee and the Tribunal’s order for AY 2005-06 had attend the finality because the assessee has not preferred an appeal before the Hon’b…

Penwalt Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Cir 7(1), Mumbai

The appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G. Manjunatha, Am

…y, the Assessing Officer’s action is confirmed and the ground raised on this issue is rejected.” 5. The learned Counsel for the assessee only relied on the case law of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Case of Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd. v. CIT [2015] 373 ITR 673 (SC) , apart from factual aspect he stated that the issue is covered. After hearing the learned Sr. Departmental Representative and assessee’s Counsel, we are of the view that the issue is covered in favour of assessee and the Tribunal’s order for AY 2005-06 had attend the finality because the assessee has not preferred an appeal before the Hon’b…

Pennwalat Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Cir 7(1), Mumbai

The appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G. Manjunatha, Am

…y, the Assessing Officer’s action is confirmed and the ground raised on this issue is rejected.” 5. The learned Counsel for the assessee only relied on the case law of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Case of Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd. v. CIT [2015] 373 ITR 673 (SC) , apart from factual aspect he stated that the issue is covered. After hearing the learned Sr. Departmental Representative and assessee’s Counsel, we are of the view that the issue is covered in favour of assessee and the Tribunal’s order for AY 2005-06 had attend the finality because the assessee has not preferred an appeal before the Hon’b…

Manek Lodge Properties, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 17(2), Mumbai

Appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3130/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Manek Lodge Properties Additional Commissioner Of Income-Tax 17(2) 13Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan Peninsula Business Park बनाम/ Tower ‘B’ M.K.Road Vs. Senapati Bapat Marg Mumbai-400 020 Lower Parel(W) Mumbai – 400 013 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabtm-7555-P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

…de additional grounds of appeal, has raised a legal plea that the rental income earned by the assessee was assessable as Business Income in terms of the ratio of judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Chennai Properties & Investments Limited Vs. CIT [2015 373 ITR 673] followed by Rayala Corporation Private Limited Vs. ACIT [2016 386 ITR 500], we take up the same first. The Ld. AR has stressed the point the since assessee’s only source of income was rental income and its objective was to earn rental income in business-like manner and therefore, the same was assessable as Business Income considering the ratio o…

Runwal Builders P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri A.L. Sainim/S. Runwal Constructions Acit Central Circle-4(1) Runwal & Omkar Esquare Mumbai 5Th Floor, Opp. Sion- Vs. Chunabhatti Signal Sion (E), Mumbai 400022 Pan – Aaafr1211Q Appellant Respondent M/S. Runwal Builders P. Ltd. Acit Central Circle-4(1) Runwal & Omkar Esquare Mumbai 5Th Floor, Opp. Sion- Vs. Chunabhatti Signal Sion (E), Mumbai 400022 Pan – Aaafr1211Q Appellant Respondent

…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…

Runwal Constructions, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri A.L. Sainim/S. Runwal Constructions Acit Central Circle-4(1) Runwal & Omkar Esquare Mumbai 5Th Floor, Opp. Sion- Vs. Chunabhatti Signal Sion (E), Mumbai 400022 Pan – Aaafr1211Q Appellant Respondent M/S. Runwal Builders P. Ltd. Acit Central Circle-4(1) Runwal & Omkar Esquare Mumbai 5Th Floor, Opp. Sion- Vs. Chunabhatti Signal Sion (E), Mumbai 400022 Pan – Aaafr1211Q Appellant Respondent

…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…

Knight Raj Properties P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 10(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyaassessment Year : 2012-13

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “SMC”, MUMBAI Before Shri Shamim Yahya, Accountant Member Assessment Year : 2012-13 Knight Raj Properties P Ltd., ITO 10(1)(4) “Kingdom” Formerly W.I.T. Bldg., Mumbai Vs. 1st Floor, 2-A, Dharavi Road, Mahim (E), Mumbai 400 017 PAN AABCK5296L (Appellant) Respondent) Appellant By : Shri K Gopal Respondent By : Ms N Hemalatha Date of Hearing : 09.11.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 05.02.2018 O R D E R This is an appeal by the assessee directed against order of learned CIT(A)- 17, Mumbai, dated 20.02.2017 and pertains to assessment year 2012-13. 2. The grounds…

Kamala Brothers, Mumbai vs. ITO 24(2)91), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri N.K. Pradhan

…artake character of stock and any income derived from stock would be ‘income from business’ and not ‘income from property’. The Ld. A.R. also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Channai Properties & Investments Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 373 ITR 673 (SC) and submitted that in terms of memorandum of association main object of assessee- company was to acquire properties and earn income by letting out same, said income was to be brought to tax as business income and not as income from house property. The Ld. A.R. submitted that there are two conflicting judgments of different high courts. In vi…

DCIT Cen Cir 4(1) Cen RG 4, Mumbai vs. Unique Estate Development Co.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S Unique Estate Development Income Tax, Central Circle-4(1), Co. Ltd., Room No. 1916, 19Th Floor, Construction House-B, Air India Building, Vs. 2Nd Floor, 623, Linking Road, Nariman Point, Khar (W), Mumbai - 400021 Mumbai - 400092 Pan: Aaacu0699N (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Ms. Arjoo Garodia (Dr) Assessee By : Shri Sanjay Sawant (Ar) Date Of Hearing: 07/12/2017 Date Of Pronouncement: 17/01/2018

…e Bench of the ITAT sent back the issue to the file of AO for fresh adjudication with the direction to decide the issue afresh in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chennai Properties and Investment Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, 373 ITR 673 and other decisions of the various Benches of the Tribunal relied upon by the assessee. Now the AO has passed order u/s 143 (3) read with section 254 of the Act and determined the total taxable income of the assessee at Rs. 3,26,03,930/-. Since, the amounts of tax sought to be evaded and the amount as per the assessment order passed u/s 143 (3) a…