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.

How many judgments cite Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. v. CIT?

381 judgments on BharatTax cite Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. v. CIT (373 ITR 673), spanning 2011 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 1961, Section 14A, Section 22, Section 24, Section 23.

Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. v. CIT (373 ITR 673)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore vs. M/S.Prestige Garden Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

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

ITA 1849/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Lalit Kumarasst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 5(1)(2), Bengaluru. … Appellant Vs. M/S.Prestige Garden Constructions Pvt. Ltd. No.1, The Falcon House, Main Guard Cross Road, Off Infantry Road, Bengaluru-560 001. … Respondent Pan:Aabcp 2091E

For Appellant: Shri B.K.Panda, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri Sudheendra, CA

…e conclusion that the rental income should be assessed under the head ‘income from business’. The approach and the rationale of the decision of ld.CIT(A) had been approved by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. vs. CIT (373 ITR 673) and also the Page 4 of 4 decision of the jurisdiction High Court in the case of CIT vs. Velankani Information Systems (P) Ltd. (218 Taxman 88)(Kar). Therefore, we do not find fallacy in the reasoning adopted by the ld.CIT(A). Hence, grounds of appeal filed by the revenue are dismissed. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismis…

Saidarshan Business Centres P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 7(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1773/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri P. K. Bansal, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. No.1773/M/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S. Saidarshan Business बिधम/ Acit-7(2) Centres Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Mumbai 405-408, Navbharat Estate, B-Wing, Zakaria Bunder Road, Sewri (W) Mumbai- 400015 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs5801J .. (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी /Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala (AR)For Respondent: Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen (DR)

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 234B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL“H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI P. K. BANSAL, VP AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. No.1773/M/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/s. Saidarshan Business बिधम/ ACIT-7(2) Centres Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Mumbai 405-408, Navbharat estate, B-wing, Zakaria Bunder Road, Sewri (W) Mumbai- 400015 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. : AAACS5801J .. (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी /Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala (AR) Department by: Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen (DR) सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date of Hearing:15.11.2017 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement:05.01.2018 आदेश / O R D E…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Excel Softech Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1345/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Dec 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Smt. Beena A Pillaia.Y. 2011-12 Acit, Circle 8(2) Excel Softech P Ltd. C.R.Bldg. Vs. 130, Transport Ip Estate Centre New Delhi Punjabi Bagh New Delhi 110 035 Pan: Aabce 6651 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Kailash Chandra Tiwari, Sr.D.R. Respondent By Shri Ved Jain, Adv. Sh. Asish Chadha, Adv. Sh. Asish Goel, Adv. Date Of Hearing 26/12/2017 Date Of Pronouncement 28/12/2017 Order Per Beena A Pillai

Section 143Section 143(3)

…ggrieved by the order of Ld.AO, assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A). Ld.CIT(A) granted relief to assessee by placing reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Chennai Properties and Investment Ltd vs. CIT reported in (2015) 373 ITR 673. 3. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT (A), revenue is in appeal before us. 4. The grounds raised by the revenue deals with the action of Ld. CIT (A) in directing the Ld. AO to assess the income earned from warehouse under the head income from house property. 4.1. Ld. DR placed reliance upon the following decisions: • Raj Dadarkar &Associates vs A…

M/S. Sabari Enterprises, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2173/CHNY/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Dec 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Mr.N.Madhavan,, ACIT, D.RFor Respondent: 15.11.2017

…income was main object of the assessee, the income derived from such property is to be treated as business income. This view of the Bench is fortified by the judgemnet of Supreme Court in the case of Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 373 ITR 673 wherein held that:- “10. No doubt in Sultan Brothers (P.) Ltd.'s case, a Constitution Bench judgment of this court has clarified that merely an entry in the objects clause showing a particular object would not be the determinative factor to arrive at an conclusion whether the income is to be treated as income from business and such a question wo…

Golcha Minerals Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

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

ITA 1137/JPR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: The Itat By Taking Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri A.B. Dangyach (CA)For Respondent: Shri P.R. Meena (Addl.CIT)

Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh Hkkxpan] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1137/JP/2016 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2012-13 cuke M/s Golcha Minerals Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax Officer, Vs. Golcha Trade Centre, M.I. Ward 2(2), Road, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AACCG 6614 R vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri A.B. Dangyach (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri P.R. Meena…

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

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1316/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Prateek Jain &For Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar-Sr. AR

Section 253Section 801A(4)(iii)

…2013, order dated 23/09/2017. On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative for the Revenue argued that grounds of the present appeal are not covered in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chennai Properties & Investment Pvt. Ltd. 373 ITR 673 (SC). In rejoinder, argument of the ld. AR submitted that the decision of the Chennai Properties & Investment Pvt. Ltd. (supra) was already considered by the coordinate Bench in para 9 of the order of the Tribunal for Assessment Year 2006-07 to 2009-10. 4 M.S. Luvish Projects Pvt. Ltd. 2.1. We have considered the submissions of the Ld. A.R of t…

ITO 15(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Third Eye Estates P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1005/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Pawan Singhassessment Year : 2010-11 Ito 15(3)(1) Third Eye Estates Pvt Ltd, Mumbai B/3301-3302 Oberoi Spring, Vs. Off Link Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri V JustinFor Respondent: Shri Hiro Rai

Section 24(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “E”, MUMBAI Before Shri P K Bansal, Vice President & Shri Pawan Singh, Judicial Member Assessment Year : 2010-11 ITO 15(3)(1) Third Eye Estates Pvt Ltd, Mumbai B/3301-3302 Oberoi Spring, Vs. Off Link Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai PAN AACCT1261H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri V Justin Respondent By : Shri Hiro Rai Date of Hearing : 31.10.2017 Date of Pronouncement : .11.2017 O R D E R Per P K Bansal, Vice-President: This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of the CIT(A)-24, Mumbai, dated 27.11.2014, for A.Y. 2010-11 The effectiv…

M/S. Tera Estates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, we allow ground No

ITA 1657/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishitera Estates Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Acit, S-395, Greater Kailash, Parti-Ii, Range-16, New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aabct5729R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Shravan Gotru, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 24

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “D”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S.SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Tera Estates Pvt. Ltd, Vs. ACIT, S-395, Greater Kailash, Parti-II, Range-16, New Delhi New Delhi PAN:AABCT5729R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Arvind Kumar, Adv Revenue by: Shri Shravan Gotru, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 23/08/2017 Date of pronouncement 08/11/2017 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT (A)-XI, New Delhi dated 20.12.2013 for the Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The assessee has…

Brt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed, as above

ITA 2001/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannubrt Limited, Neville House, J.N.Heredia Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400 001 Pan: Aaacb 2433K ...... Appellant Vs. The Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Mumbai - 400 020 ...... Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Arati VissanjiFor Respondent: Ms. M. Hemalatha

Section 143(3)Section 24

…as been rightly declared by the assessee to be business income. In the course of hearing, the Ld.Representative for the assessee has also referred to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Chennai properties & Investment Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, 373 ITR 673(SC) and Rayala Corporation Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, Civil Appeal No.6437 of 2016 dated 11th Aug.2016. 4 5. On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative has reiterated the reasoning advanced by the lower authorities, which have been noted in the earlier para and are not being repeated for the sake of brevity. 6. I have carefully considered t…

ITO 8(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Niyman Mall Management Co P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes and the CO of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2744/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am Income Tax Officer 8(2)(3) Niyman Mall Management Room No. 213/216A, 2Nd Floor, Co. Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Knowledge House, Shyam Vs. Mumbai-400020 Nagar, Off. Jogeshwari Vikhroli, Link Road, Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai-60 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aaccn0043P

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

…ess income. In the result this ground of appeal is allowed.” Revenue is in appeal before tribunal in all the three years. 6. At the outset, the learned Sr. DR stated that recently Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Dadarkar & Associates vs ACIT (2015) 373 ITR 673 (SC), held that wherever there is an income from leasing out of premises and collecting rent, normally such an income is to be treated as income from house property, in case provisions of Section 22 of the Act are satisfied with primary ingredient that the assessee is the owner of the said building or lands appurtenant thereto. Section 22 of the…

ITO 8(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Niyaman Mall Management Co P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes and the CO of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2742/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am Income Tax Officer 8(2)(3) Niyman Mall Management Room No. 213/216A, 2Nd Floor, Co. Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Knowledge House, Shyam Vs. Mumbai-400020 Nagar, Off. Jogeshwari Vikhroli, Link Road, Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai-60 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aaccn0043P

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

…ess income. In the result this ground of appeal is allowed.” Revenue is in appeal before tribunal in all the three years. 6. At the outset, the learned Sr. DR stated that recently Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Dadarkar & Associates vs ACIT (2015) 373 ITR 673 (SC), held that wherever there is an income from leasing out of premises and collecting rent, normally such an income is to be treated as income from house property, in case provisions of Section 22 of the Act are satisfied with primary ingredient that the assessee is the owner of the said building or lands appurtenant thereto. Section 22 of the…

ITO 8(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Niyaman Mall Management Co. P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes and the CO of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2823/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am Income Tax Officer 8(2)(3) Niyman Mall Management Room No. 213/216A, 2Nd Floor, Co. Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Knowledge House, Shyam Vs. Mumbai-400020 Nagar, Off. Jogeshwari Vikhroli, Link Road, Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai-60 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aaccn0043P

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

…ess income. In the result this ground of appeal is allowed.” Revenue is in appeal before tribunal in all the three years. 6. At the outset, the learned Sr. DR stated that recently Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Dadarkar & Associates vs ACIT (2015) 373 ITR 673 (SC), held that wherever there is an income from leasing out of premises and collecting rent, normally such an income is to be treated as income from house property, in case provisions of Section 22 of the Act are satisfied with primary ingredient that the assessee is the owner of the said building or lands appurtenant thereto. Section 22 of the…

Oberoi Buildings & Investments Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-5, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee (Ground No

ITA 1205/KOL/2014[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Oct 2017AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri A. T Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1204/Kol/2014 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08 Vs. A.C.I.T, Circle – 5, Kolkata Oberoi Investments Pvt. Ltd. 4, Mangoe Lane, 6Th Floor, Kolkata – 700 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaco 2859E (Assessee) .. (Respondent) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1205/Kol/2014 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08 Oberoi Buildings & Investments Vs. A.C.I.T, Circle – 5, Kolkata Pvt. Ltd. 4, Mangoe Lane, 6Th Floor, Kolkata – 700 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaco 2860 R (Assessee) .. (Respondent) Assesseeby : Shri A. K. Gupta, Fca Respondent By :Shri Kalyannath, Acit(Dr) सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 07/09/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04/10/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee(Group Companies` Appeals), Pertaining To Assessment Year 2007-08, In Respect Of M/S Oberoi Investments Pvt. Ltd. Andm/S Oberoi Buildings & Investments Pvt. Ltd., Are Directed Against The Orders Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Vi, Which Oberoi Investments Pvt. Ltd. & Oberoi Buildings & Investments Pvt. Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Gupta, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Kalyannath, ACIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…Assessment Year 2006-07 dated 26.07.2017 wherein the Hon’ble Tribunal observed thatthe order of the ITAT for Assessment Year 2005-06 has been stayed by the Hon’ble High Court. But the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chennai Properties & Investment Ltd. Vs. CIT(2005) 373 ITR 673 has categorically held that in case, letting of the properties was in fact the business of the assessee, then the assessee disclosing the same under the head income from business had to be upheld and it cannot be treated as income from house property. This proposition of law had been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Royala Corporation P…

Oberoi Investments Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT Cir-5, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee (Ground No

ITA 1204/KOL/2014[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Oct 2017AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri A. T Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1204/Kol/2014 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08 Vs. A.C.I.T, Circle – 5, Kolkata Oberoi Investments Pvt. Ltd. 4, Mangoe Lane, 6Th Floor, Kolkata – 700 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaco 2859E (Assessee) .. (Respondent) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1205/Kol/2014 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08 Oberoi Buildings & Investments Vs. A.C.I.T, Circle – 5, Kolkata Pvt. Ltd. 4, Mangoe Lane, 6Th Floor, Kolkata – 700 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaco 2860 R (Assessee) .. (Respondent) Assesseeby : Shri A. K. Gupta, Fca Respondent By :Shri Kalyannath, Acit(Dr) सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 07/09/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04/10/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee(Group Companies` Appeals), Pertaining To Assessment Year 2007-08, In Respect Of M/S Oberoi Investments Pvt. Ltd. Andm/S Oberoi Buildings & Investments Pvt. Ltd., Are Directed Against The Orders Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Vi, Which Oberoi Investments Pvt. Ltd. & Oberoi Buildings & Investments Pvt. Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Gupta, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Kalyannath, ACIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…Assessment Year 2006-07 dated 26.07.2017 wherein the Hon’ble Tribunal observed thatthe order of the ITAT for Assessment Year 2005-06 has been stayed by the Hon’ble High Court. But the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chennai Properties & Investment Ltd. Vs. CIT(2005) 373 ITR 673 has categorically held that in case, letting of the properties was in fact the business of the assessee, then the assessee disclosing the same under the head income from business had to be upheld and it cannot be treated as income from house property. This proposition of law had been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Royala Corporation P…

DCIT 8(2), Mumbai vs. M S Luvish Infotech Projects P.Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2745/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Naresh Jain, Ld. ARFor Respondent: R.P.Meena & Saurabh Deshpande, Ld

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

…ed by assessee was assessable as Income from House Property by placing reliance on the decision of Madras High Court in CIT Vs. Chennai Properties & Investments Limited [2004 266 ITR 685] which has subsequently been reversed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court [2015 373 ITR 673] where the assessee’s appeal has been allowed and therefore, the issue squarely stood covered in assessee’s favor by the cited judgment of Hon’ble Court. Our attention is also drawn to the fact the ratio of this decision has subsequently been followed by the same court in the case of Rayala Corporation Vs. ACIT [2016) 72 taxmann.com 149]. 4.2 The…

Luvish Infotech Projects (P) Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 16(2), Hyderabad

Appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 308/HYD/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Naresh Jain, Ld. ARFor Respondent: R.P.Meena & Saurabh Deshpande, Ld

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

…ed by assessee was assessable as Income from House Property by placing reliance on the decision of Madras High Court in CIT Vs. Chennai Properties & Investments Limited [2004 266 ITR 685] which has subsequently been reversed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court [2015 373 ITR 673] where the assessee’s appeal has been allowed and therefore, the issue squarely stood covered in assessee’s favor by the cited judgment of Hon’ble Court. Our attention is also drawn to the fact the ratio of this decision has subsequently been followed by the same court in the case of Rayala Corporation Vs. ACIT [2016) 72 taxmann.com 149]. 4.2 The…

Asiatic Stores & Soda Fountain, Mumbai vs. ITO 12(3)(3)

In the result, appeal for the Assessment Year 2006-07 is also partly allowed

ITA 398/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay KapadiaFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS. 394, 395 & : A.Ys : 2006-07, 2007-08 398/MUM/2017 & 2010-11 Asiatic Stores & Soda Fountain Vs. ITO-12(3)(3), 73, Industrial Assurance Bldg., Mumbai Veer Nariman Road, Churchgate, (Respondent) Mumbai 400 020 (Appellant) PAN : AAAFA8467D ITA NOS. 396 & 397/MUM/2017 : A.Ys : 2008-09 & 2009-10 Asiatic Stores & Soda Fountain Vs. ITO-17(1)(2), 73, Industrial Assurance Bldg., Mumbai Veer Nariman Road, Churchgate, (Respondent) Mumbai 400 020 (Appellant) PAN : AAAFA846…

Asiatic Stores & Soda Fountain, Mumbai vs. ITO 17(1)(2)

In the result, appeal for the Assessment Year 2006-07 is also partly allowed

ITA 397/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay KapadiaFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS. 394, 395 & : A.Ys : 2006-07, 2007-08 398/MUM/2017 & 2010-11 Asiatic Stores & Soda Fountain Vs. ITO-12(3)(3), 73, Industrial Assurance Bldg., Mumbai Veer Nariman Road, Churchgate, (Respondent) Mumbai 400 020 (Appellant) PAN : AAAFA8467D ITA NOS. 396 & 397/MUM/2017 : A.Ys : 2008-09 & 2009-10 Asiatic Stores & Soda Fountain Vs. ITO-17(1)(2), 73, Industrial Assurance Bldg., Mumbai Veer Nariman Road, Churchgate, (Respondent) Mumbai 400 020 (Appellant) PAN : AAAFA846…

Asiatic Stores & Soda Fountain, Mumbai vs. ITO 17(1)(2)

In the result, appeal for the Assessment Year 2006-07 is also partly allowed

ITA 396/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay KapadiaFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS. 394, 395 & : A.Ys : 2006-07, 2007-08 398/MUM/2017 & 2010-11 Asiatic Stores & Soda Fountain Vs. ITO-12(3)(3), 73, Industrial Assurance Bldg., Mumbai Veer Nariman Road, Churchgate, (Respondent) Mumbai 400 020 (Appellant) PAN : AAAFA8467D ITA NOS. 396 & 397/MUM/2017 : A.Ys : 2008-09 & 2009-10 Asiatic Stores & Soda Fountain Vs. ITO-17(1)(2), 73, Industrial Assurance Bldg., Mumbai Veer Nariman Road, Churchgate, (Respondent) Mumbai 400 020 (Appellant) PAN : AAAFA846…

Asiatic Stores & Soda Fountain, Mumbai vs. ITO 17(1)(2)

In the result, appeal for the Assessment Year 2006-07 is also partly allowed

ITA 395/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay KapadiaFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS. 394, 395 & : A.Ys : 2006-07, 2007-08 398/MUM/2017 & 2010-11 Asiatic Stores & Soda Fountain Vs. ITO-12(3)(3), 73, Industrial Assurance Bldg., Mumbai Veer Nariman Road, Churchgate, (Respondent) Mumbai 400 020 (Appellant) PAN : AAAFA8467D ITA NOS. 396 & 397/MUM/2017 : A.Ys : 2008-09 & 2009-10 Asiatic Stores & Soda Fountain Vs. ITO-17(1)(2), 73, Industrial Assurance Bldg., Mumbai Veer Nariman Road, Churchgate, (Respondent) Mumbai 400 020 (Appellant) PAN : AAAFA846…

Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. v. CIT

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

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. v. CIT

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore vs. M/S.Prestige Garden Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

Saidarshan Business Centres P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 7(2), Mumbai

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Excel Softech Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

M/S. Sabari Enterprises, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

Golcha Minerals Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

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

ITO 15(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Third Eye Estates P.Ltd, Mumbai

M/S. Tera Estates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Brt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 2(1)(1), Mumbai

ITO 8(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Niyman Mall Management Co P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITO 8(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Niyaman Mall Management Co P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITO 8(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Niyaman Mall Management Co. P.Ltd, Mumbai

Oberoi Buildings & Investments Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-5, Kolkata

Oberoi Investments Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT Cir-5, Kolkata

DCIT 8(2), Mumbai vs. M S Luvish Infotech Projects P.Ltd, Mumbai

Luvish Infotech Projects (P) Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 16(2), Hyderabad

Asiatic Stores & Soda Fountain, Mumbai vs. ITO 12(3)(3)

Asiatic Stores & Soda Fountain, Mumbai vs. ITO 17(1)(2)

Asiatic Stores & Soda Fountain, Mumbai vs. ITO 17(1)(2)

Asiatic Stores & Soda Fountain, Mumbai vs. ITO 17(1)(2)