Chennai Properties &amp; Investments Ltd. v. CIT

ITA 2224/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Aug 2017AY 2008-09

…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…

C.P. Kukreja Associates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri I. C. Sudhir & Shri L. P. Sahu

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta; AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. D. R

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)

…s reduced by the assessee from rental income as there was always fluid situation as to who would bear it. He reiterated that this cannot be the basis of penalty. The ld. AR cited following decisions :- (i) Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. Vs. CIT (2015) 373 ITR 673 (SC); (ii) CIT & Anr. Vs. M/s. SSA’S Emerald Meadows & Anr. in I.T.A. No. 380 of 2015 dated 23.11.2015 [High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru]; (iii) CIT Vs. M/s. SSA’S EMERALDS MEADOWS SLP to Appeal [CC No.11485/2016] dated 5.08.2016; (iv) CIT Vs. M/s. Vishnu Industrial Gases P. Ltd. 8 I. T. Appeal No. 2224/Del/2012 Assessment Year : 2008-09.…

Madras Sheet Glass Works (P) Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

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

ITA 442/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.442/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 M/S. Madras Sheet Glass Works (P) The Income Tax Officer, Ltd., No. 67A, Village Road, Vs. Company Ward Iv(1), 121, Mahatma Thiruvottiyur, Chennai 600 019. Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, [Pan: Aaacm5340G] Chennai 600 019. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K. Ravi, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.06.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2017 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 8, Chennai Dated 05.11.2015 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds In Its Appeal: (I) The Cit (A) Erred In Not Accepting The Appellant'S Claim That It Was Carrying On Trading Business In Glass Sheet, During The Accounting Period Although On A Small Scale. (Ii) The Cit (A) Ought To Have Directed The Assessing Officer To Compute The Losses Incurred By The Assessee During The Year (Without Taking Into Account The 2

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. Ravi, JCIT

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…rental income should be assessable as business profits and therefore the loss incurred by the assessee during the year should be set off against the business income and mainly relied on the decision in the case of Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. v. CIT 373 ITR 673 (SC). 5. On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). 6. We have heard both sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. With regard to rental income, before the Assessing Officer, it was the submissions of the assessee that the assessee has been in the habit o…

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

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1640/KOL/2014[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Jul 2017AY 2006-2007

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And डॉ. अजु"न लाल सैनी, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 14ASection 22

…1 Oberoi Buildings & Inv. Pvt. Ltd. AY 2006-07 आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “B” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH: KOLKATA (सम")Before "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/and डॉ. अजु"न लाल सैनी, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, JM & Dr. A. L. Saini, AM] I.T.A. No. 1640/Kol/2014 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Oberoi Buildings & Investments Pvt. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income- Ltd. (PAN: AABCO2860R) tax, Circle-5, Kolkata. Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing 11.05.2017 Date of Pronouncement 26.07.2017 For the Appellant Shri A. K. Gupta, FCA For the Respondent N o n e ORDER Per Shri A.…

ITO, Chennai vs. Kodai Housing Private Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 231/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jun 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Mr.G.Baskar,Advocate &

Section 30Section 40

…). On appeal, Ld.CIT(A) treated it as business income only on the reason that the assessee company has been rendering additional services to their tenant following the judgement of Apex Court in the case of Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd. Vs. CIT (373 ITR 673)(SC). Against the order of Ld.CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us. 3 4. I have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. In my opinion, in principle, I agree with the findings of the Ld.CIT(A) as there was a binding decision of Supreme Court in the case of Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd. Vs. CIT(supra) wherein he…

Banzai Estates P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 4034/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am

Section 143(3)Section 24

…lso Karani Properties Limited vs. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 547 (SC). Further, Hon’ble Supreme Court 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…

Banggreen Holdings P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for AY 2005-06 is allowed

ITA 1999/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singh

For Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…assessable under the head “Business Income” and the corresponding expenses and depreciation are allowable. In support of submission that ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd. Vs. CIT (373 ITR 673) (SC). In fourth preposition, the ld. AR of the assessee argued that mere change of head of income, no penalty is leviable. In support of his submission, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the following decisions; (i) CIT vs. Bennet Coleman & Co. Ltd. (33 taxmann.com 227) (Bom. HC), (ii) ITO vs. Balkishen R. Mehra (ITA No. 3862/M/12 (Mum.…

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

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 4454/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am

Section 143(3)Section 24

…lso Karani Properties Limited vs. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 547 (SC). Further, Hon’ble Supreme Court 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…

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

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 4452/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am

Section 143(3)Section 24

…lso Karani Properties Limited vs. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 547 (SC). Further, Hon’ble Supreme Court 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…

Distinct Developers P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 6(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6943/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 May 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)

…y, by placing reliance on the following decisions rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court, the learned AR submitted that the rental income received by it should be assessed under the head “income from business” :- (a) Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd. (2015) 373 ITR 673 (b) Rayala Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2016) 386 ITR 500 4. Learned AR further submitted that an identical issue was considered by the Coordinate Bench in the case of ACIT Vs. M/s. Stellar Developer Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 68 SOT 34 and the same has been decided in favour of the assessee. Learned AR submitted that the assessee does not have any oth…

M/S.T.R.Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 373/BANG/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Apr 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri P. Dinesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V.Sreenivasan, JCIT (D.R)

…e assessee. Thus the lease rental of commercially leased out the premises is business income of the assessee. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. Vs. CIT 373 ITR 673 and submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court after considering the Memorandum of Association of the said company containing main objects as well as incidental or ancillary objections held that letting of property is business of the assessee and therefore it was rightly disclosed the income under the head “Income from Business”. 5. On the other ha…

ITO 3(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Bajaj Capital Ventures P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee as well as Revenue are partly allowed, as above

ITA 789/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negibajaj Capital Ventures Pvt. Ltd., 106/107, 10Th Floor, Bajaj Bhavan, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, 226 Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 Pan: Aaaca 3565F ...... Appellant Vs. Dy.Cit – 3(1)(1), Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 .... Respondent Dy.Cit – 3(1)(1), Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 .... Appellant

For Appellant: Shri V. MohanFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Singla

ITA 1257/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S.PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Bajaj Capital Ventures Pvt. Ltd., 106/107, 10th Floor, Bajaj Bhavan, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, 226 Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 PAN: AAACA 3565F ...... Appellant Vs. Dy.CIT – 3(1)(1), Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 .... Respondent Dy.CIT – 3(1)(1), Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 .... Appellant Vs. Bajaj Capital Ventures Pvt. Ltd., 106/107, 10th Floor, Bajaj Bhavan, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, 226 Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 PAN: AAACA 3565F ..... Respondent Ass…

Bajaj Capital Ventures P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 3(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee as well as Revenue are partly allowed, as above

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negibajaj Capital Ventures Pvt. Ltd., 106/107, 10Th Floor, Bajaj Bhavan, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, 226 Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 Pan: Aaaca 3565F ...... Appellant Vs. Dy.Cit – 3(1)(1), Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 .... Respondent Dy.Cit – 3(1)(1), Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 .... Appellant

For Appellant: Shri V. MohanFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Singla

ITA 3034/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S.PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Bajaj Capital Ventures Pvt. Ltd., 106/107, 10th Floor, Bajaj Bhavan, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, 226 Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 PAN: AAACA 3565F ...... Appellant Vs. Dy.CIT – 3(1)(1), Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 .... Respondent Dy.CIT – 3(1)(1), Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 .... Appellant Vs. Bajaj Capital Ventures Pvt. Ltd., 106/107, 10th Floor, Bajaj Bhavan, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, 226 Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 PAN: AAACA 3565F ..... Respondent Ass…

M/S. Kailash Dwellers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Umesh Chand Dubey, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 22Section 234BSection 24

…identical to the facts 10. involved in the assessment year i.e. 2012-13 which has been decided by the ld CIT(A) in assessee’s favour by following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of M/s. Chennai Property and Investment Ltd. Vs CIT reported at 373 ITR 673 (supra). In the present case the ld counsel for the assessee stated that department had not preferred any appeal against the order dated 29.01.2016 passed by the ld CIT(A) for the subsequent assessment year i.e. Assessment Year 2012-13, the said averment needs verification. We therefore deem it appropriate to set aside this issue back to the file…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year 2006-07 is hereby allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1576/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year : 2004-05 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Acit, Central Circle-20, Ansal Housing & Construction New Delhi. Ltd., Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

ITA 1254/DEL/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2017AY 2005-06

…Court in the assessee’s own case for earlier years, the legal position regarding taxability of rental income has been altered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 09th April, 2015 in the case of Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. vs. CIT, (2015) 373 ITR 673 (SC), wherein, the Apex Court, while considering the earlier decisions of the Apex Court on the same issue, held, that, where an assessee is incorporated to commercially exploit the house property, which is carried on as business activity, the rental income earned in pursuance of such business would be assessable as business income and not as…

The ACIT., New Delhi vs. M/S. Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year 2006-07 is hereby allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year : 2004-05 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Acit, Central Circle-20, Ansal Housing & Construction New Delhi. Ltd., Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

ITA 1248/DEL/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2017AY 2005-06

…Court in the assessee’s own case for earlier years, the legal position regarding taxability of rental income has been altered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 09th April, 2015 in the case of Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. vs. CIT, (2015) 373 ITR 673 (SC), wherein, the Apex Court, while considering the earlier decisions of the Apex Court on the same issue, held, that, where an assessee is incorporated to commercially exploit the house property, which is carried on as business activity, the rental income earned in pursuance of such business would be assessable as business income and not as…

Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year 2006-07 is hereby allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year : 2004-05 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Acit, Central Circle-20, Ansal Housing & Construction New Delhi. Ltd., Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

ITA 3193/DEL/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2017AY 2004-2005

…Court in the assessee’s own case for earlier years, the legal position regarding taxability of rental income has been altered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 09th April, 2015 in the case of Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. vs. CIT, (2015) 373 ITR 673 (SC), wherein, the Apex Court, while considering the earlier decisions of the Apex Court on the same issue, held, that, where an assessee is incorporated to commercially exploit the house property, which is carried on as business activity, the rental income earned in pursuance of such business would be assessable as business income and not as…

Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT CC-20, New Delhi

Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year 2006-07 is hereby allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year : 2004-05 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Acit, Central Circle-20, Ansal Housing & Construction New Delhi. Ltd., Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

ITA 7086/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

…Court in the assessee’s own case for earlier years, the legal position regarding taxability of rental income has been altered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 09th April, 2015 in the case of Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. vs. CIT, (2015) 373 ITR 673 (SC), wherein, the Apex Court, while considering the earlier decisions of the Apex Court on the same issue, held, that, where an assessee is incorporated to commercially exploit the house property, which is carried on as business activity, the rental income earned in pursuance of such business would be assessable as business income and not as…

Sea Scan Marine Services P. Ltd, Goa vs. DCIT CC-9, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Sea Scan Marine Services Dcit Cc-9, Pvt. Ltd., Fire Services Old Cgo Building, Compound, St. Inez Panaji, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Goa-403001 Pan: Aadcs4236J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Amar Gahlot (AR)For Respondent: Shri Akhilendra Jadav (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 24Section 253Section 254(1)

…). 2. East India Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd. [1961] 42 ITR 49 (SC). 3. Karanpura Development Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT [1962] 44 ITR 362(SC). 4. Sultan Brothers (P) Ltd. Vs CIT [1964] 51 ITR 353 (SC). 5. Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. vs. CIT [2015] 373 ITR 673. 6. Abdul Qayume Vs. CIT [1990] 50 Taxman 171 (All). 7. Profile Consultancy Services (P) Ltd. Vs CIT [2016] 161 296 (Mumbai-Trib.). 4. On the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue supported the order of authorities below and argued that the assessee consistently was showing “Business Income” from letting out of the property. The assessee was receivi…

DCIT 5(2), Mumbai vs. National Reality P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals i

ITA 3844/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Ashwani Taneja, Am National Reality P Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax 11-16 Ashoka Shopping Centre, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Lokmanya Tilak Marg, Near Mumbai-20 G.T. Hospital, Mumbai-400 011 .. Appellant Respondent Pan No. Aaacn1433D Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, National Reality P Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 11-16 Ashoka Shopping Mumbai-20 Vs. Centre, Lokmanya Tilak Marg, Near G.T. Hospital, Mumbai-400 011 .. Appellant Respondent Pan No. Aaacn1433D