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

Agya Ram vs. Commmissioner of Income Tax

The appeals are allowed but in the circumstances with no order as to

ITA/290/2004HC Delhi01 Aug 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 147Section 22Section 28

…essman in that business on the facts and in the circumstances of each case. ITA Nos. 290/2004, 291/2004, 292/2004 & 293/2004 Page 15 of 16 23. In Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2015) 373 ITR 673 (SC), the Court accepted the plea of the Assessee in that case that where the main line of business was letting of property then the income therefrom should not be treated as „income from house property‟ but „business income‟. 24. In Associated Hotels of India Ltd. v. R.N. Kapoor AIR 1959 SC 1262, a distinction was drawn between a licence…

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi vs. M/S Ansal Housing & Construction

ITA/442/2003HC Delhi26 Jul 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 22

…g Finance & Leasing Co. Ltd. (2013) 354 ITR 180 (Del). 3. As far as question A is concerned, an attempt has been made by learned counsel for the Assessee to urge that in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd v. CIT 373 ITR 673 (SC), the decision of this Court in CIT v. Ansal Housing Finance & Leasing Co. Ltd. (supra) requires to be reconsidered. 4. In the first place it requires to be noticed that the same question squarely arose before this Court in CIT v. Ansal Housing Finance & Leasing Co. Ltd. (supra). In para 5 of the said judgment the Court noted the subm…

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

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 649/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 649/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Bakul Investments Private Limited, Ito-2(1)(1), Room No. 561, 5Th Floor, 63, Sonawala Building, बनाम/ Bombay Samachar Marg, Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Marg, Vs. Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacb 2438 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Krit Kamdar & Shri Partha Tambday ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Javed Akhtar

For Appellant: Shri Krit Kamdar &For Respondent: Shri Javed Akhtar
Section 27Section 271(1)(c)

…easonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee as per the set principles of natural justice. Accordingly, relevant grounds raised in the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.’ (*)Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd. vs. CIT [2015] 373 ITR 673 (SC) Though the ld. AR argued the appeal on merits as well, the fact of the matter is that the assessment of the impugned income is set aside, so that it does not survive, and there is therefore no question of levy of penalty in its’ respect. The plea by the ld. DR with regard to liberty being extended to the Revenue, the same is superfluous in-…

Damask Projects P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 6(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 7672/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu

For Appellant: Shri Firoze B.AndhyarujinaFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Mankoskar
Section 143(3)

…No. 7672/MUM/2014,(A. Y : 2010-11) No.6216/Mum/2013 dated 4/11/2015 has set-aside the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for a decision afresh, in the light of the Hon'ble Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd.,373 ITR 673(SC). It was therefore, contended that in this year too, the matter may be remanded back to the file of Assessing Officer, to be decided afresh in the light of aforesaid precedent. As a consequence, the order of the CIT(A) is set-aside and the Assessing Officer is directed to decide the issue afresh in the light of the Tribunal’s order dated 4/11/…

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 5839/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.5839/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) National Realty Private Deputy Commissioner Of बनाम/ Limited Income Tax Circle 5(2) Vs. 11-16 Ashoka Shopping R.No.525, Aayakar Bhavan, Centre, Lokmanya Tilak M.K.Road, Marg, Near G T Hospital, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn1433D

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi & NishitFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar & N. P
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 57

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ ‘बी’ मुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI "ी आर. सी. शमा", लेखा सद"य, एवं "ी अमरजीत "संह, "या"यक सद"य, के सम" BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.5839/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) National Realty Private Deputy Commissioner of बनाम/ Limited Income Tax Circle 5(2) Vs. 11-16 Ashoka Shopping R.No.525, Aayakar Bhavan, Centre, Lokmanya Tilak M.K.Road, Marg, Near G T Hospital, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAACN1433D .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respond…

M/S Kisan Gramin Bhandaran vs. ITO

Appeal is allowed

ITA 604/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri O. P, Kant Assessment Year: 2007-08 Kisan Gramin Bhandaran, Vs. Ito, Asalatpur Jarai, Chandausi, Chandausi (Up) (Up) (Pan: Aaifk1137C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Piyush Kaushik, Adv. Department By: Smt. Rishpal Bedi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18 .04.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 27:06.2016 Order Per I.C. Sudhir:The Assessee Has Questioned First Appellate Order On The Ground That The Learned Cit(Appeals) Was Justified In Upholding Rental Income Received On Letting Out Warehouses Under The Head “Income From House Property” Against The Business Income Shown By The Assessee. 2. Heard & Considered The Arguments Advanced By The Parties In View Of Orders Of The Authorities Below, Material Available On Record & The Decisions Relied Upon. 3. The Facts In Brief Are That The Assessee, A Partnership Firm Had Disclosed Rental Income Of Rs.8,11,046 As Business Income In Its Profit & Loss Account & Net Income Of Rs.2,325 Was Shown As Business Income After

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Kaushik, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Rishpal Bedi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…quent proceedings will be invalid. 5. On merit, the Learned AR submitted that the issue raised is fully covered in favour of the assessee by the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chennai Properties & Investment Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) – 373 ITR 673 (SC) reversing the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court reported in 266 ITR 685 (Mad.) followed by the Learned CIT(Appeals) for holding the rental income as income from the house properties. The Learned AR pointed out that throughout it has been 4 remained the case of the assessee that it was having no other business than letting out the warehou…

The Commissioner of Income Tax III vs. Sri Ravi Sanghi

ITTA/168/2010HC Telangana23 Jun 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Keyaram Developers and Hotels P Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, I.T.A. No.402/Mds/2013 is dismissed

ITA 2216/CHNY/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.402/Mds/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2003-04

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. P. Radhakrishnan, JCIT

…h Court‘s judgment for earlier assessment year in the assessee's own case is the judgment of Division Bench of Madras High Court in Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd. (supra). Now, the Apex Court in Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd. v. CIT (2015) 373 ITR 673 reversed the judgment of Madras High Court in Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd. (supra). Therefore, the judgment of Madras High Court is not applicable to the facts of the case. For the 4 I.T.A. No.402/Mds/13 I.T.A. No.1095/Mds/14 I.T.A. Nos.2215 & 2216/Mds/15 assessment year 2003-04, when the matter came before this Tribunal, it was…

Keyaram Developers and Hotels P Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, I.T.A. No.402/Mds/2013 is dismissed

ITA 2215/CHNY/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.402/Mds/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2003-04

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. P. Radhakrishnan, JCIT

…h Court‘s judgment for earlier assessment year in the assessee's own case is the judgment of Division Bench of Madras High Court in Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd. (supra). Now, the Apex Court in Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd. v. CIT (2015) 373 ITR 673 reversed the judgment of Madras High Court in Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd. (supra). Therefore, the judgment of Madras High Court is not applicable to the facts of the case. For the 4 I.T.A. No.402/Mds/13 I.T.A. No.1095/Mds/14 I.T.A. Nos.2215 & 2216/Mds/15 assessment year 2003-04, when the matter came before this Tribunal, it was…

Keyaram Hotels Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, I.T.A. No.402/Mds/2013 is dismissed

ITA 1095/CHNY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jun 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.402/Mds/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2003-04

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. P. Radhakrishnan, JCIT

…h Court‘s judgment for earlier assessment year in the assessee's own case is the judgment of Division Bench of Madras High Court in Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd. (supra). Now, the Apex Court in Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd. v. CIT (2015) 373 ITR 673 reversed the judgment of Madras High Court in Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd. (supra). Therefore, the judgment of Madras High Court is not applicable to the facts of the case. For the 4 I.T.A. No.402/Mds/13 I.T.A. No.1095/Mds/14 I.T.A. Nos.2215 & 2216/Mds/15 assessment year 2003-04, when the matter came before this Tribunal, it was…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Keyaram Hotel Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, I.T.A. No.402/Mds/2013 is dismissed

ITA 402/CHNY/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jun 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.402/Mds/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2003-04

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. P. Radhakrishnan, JCIT

…h Court‘s judgment for earlier assessment year in the assessee's own case is the judgment of Division Bench of Madras High Court in Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd. (supra). Now, the Apex Court in Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd. v. CIT (2015) 373 ITR 673 reversed the judgment of Madras High Court in Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd. (supra). Therefore, the judgment of Madras High Court is not applicable to the facts of the case. For the 4 I.T.A. No.402/Mds/13 I.T.A. No.1095/Mds/14 I.T.A. Nos.2215 & 2216/Mds/15 assessment year 2003-04, when the matter came before this Tribunal, it was…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Mr.Syed Mohammed Shabbir

ITA/567/2015HC Karnataka31 May 2016

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 143(3)Section 260

…ome Tax Vs. Velankani Information Systems (P.) Ltd. reported at (2013) 218 TAXMAN 0088 (Karnataka) and another decision of the Apex Court in the case of Chennai 5 Properties & Investments Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported at (2015) 373 ITR 673 (SC). 5. We may record that the Tribunal while dealing with the aforesaid aspect at paragraphs 6.3.1 to 6.3.5 has observed thus: “6.3.1 We have heard the rival contentions and perused and carefully considered the material on record; including the judicial decisions cited and relied upon. We find from the details placed on record by th…

Trade Wings Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 2(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result , appeal of the assessee company in ITA No

ITA 3419/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3416/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3417/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3418/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3419/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Trade Wings Limited, Income Tax Officer – Ward बनाम/ 18/20-K, Dubash Marg, 2(3)(3), V. Fort,Mumbai – 400 023. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaact4639F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra,DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “E” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3416/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3417/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3418/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3419/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Trade Wings Limited, Income Tax Officer – Ward बनाम/ 18/20-K, Dubash Marg, 2(3)(3), v. Fort,Mumbai – 400 023. Aayakar…

Trade Wings Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 2(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result , appeal of the assessee company in ITA No

ITA 3418/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3416/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3417/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3418/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3419/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Trade Wings Limited, Income Tax Officer – Ward बनाम/ 18/20-K, Dubash Marg, 2(3)(3), V. Fort,Mumbai – 400 023. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaact4639F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra,DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “E” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3416/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3417/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3418/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3419/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Trade Wings Limited, Income Tax Officer – Ward बनाम/ 18/20-K, Dubash Marg, 2(3)(3), v. Fort,Mumbai – 400 023. Aayakar…

Trade Wings Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 2(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result , appeal of the assessee company in ITA No

ITA 3417/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3416/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3417/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3418/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3419/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Trade Wings Limited, Income Tax Officer – Ward बनाम/ 18/20-K, Dubash Marg, 2(3)(3), V. Fort,Mumbai – 400 023. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaact4639F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra,DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “E” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3416/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3417/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3418/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3419/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Trade Wings Limited, Income Tax Officer – Ward बनाम/ 18/20-K, Dubash Marg, 2(3)(3), v. Fort,Mumbai – 400 023. Aayakar…

Trade Wings Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 2(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result , appeal of the assessee company in ITA No

ITA 3416/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3416/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3417/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3418/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3419/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Trade Wings Limited, Income Tax Officer – Ward बनाम/ 18/20-K, Dubash Marg, 2(3)(3), V. Fort,Mumbai – 400 023. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaact4639F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra,DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “E” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3416/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3417/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3418/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3419/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Trade Wings Limited, Income Tax Officer – Ward बनाम/ 18/20-K, Dubash Marg, 2(3)(3), v. Fort,Mumbai – 400 023. Aayakar…

Blue Star, Mumbai vs. Jt CIT RG 16(3), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statical purpose

ITA 2510/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S Blue Star, Jt. Cit Range-16(3), 312 A, Prasad Chambers, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Opera House, Mumbai-400004. Mumbai-400020. Pan: Aaafb1196N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi (AR)For Respondent: Shri D.P. Reddy (DR)
Section 14Section 14A

…ed on record. There is no cogent material before us which may suggest that object of assessee was to acquire and hold and to earn rental income. The Hon’ble Apex Court in a recent judgment in Chennai Properties and Investment Ltd. vs. CIT reported viz. (2015) 373 ITR 673 (SC) held as under: “If main object as well as incidental and ancillary object is to acquire whole of the property and to let out those property as well as make advances upon the security of land and building on all other property or any interest therein and earning income by letting out of those property to be treated as “Income from Business”.…

Knk Engineering Works, Mumbai vs. ITO 23(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the Assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1205/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1205/Mum/12 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Income Tax Officer Range बनाम/ Knk Engineering Works Kasturi Building, 3Rd Floor, 23(1)(4) Vs. Mumbai Sanghvi Estate, Station Road, Govandi (E), Mumbai - 400088

For Appellant: Shri K. GopalFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153(1)Section 22

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,“ए” "यायपीठ, मुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI "ी बी. आर. बा"करन, लेखा सद"य, एवं "ी अमरजीत "संह, "या"यक सद"य, के सम" BEFORE SHRI B.R.BASKARAN, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1205/Mum/12 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Income Tax Officer Range बनाम/ KNK Engineering Works Kasturi Building, 3rd Floor, 23(1)(4) Vs. Mumbai Sanghvi Estate, Station Road, Govandi (E), Mumbai - 400088 "थायी लेखा सं/.जीआइआर सं/.PAN/GIR No. : AAGFK5940D .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee by: Shri K. Gopal Department by: Shri Manoj Kumar सुन…

Palm Court Buildings P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 1(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee may be treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3678/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Palm Court Buildings P. Ito 1(2)(4) Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. बनाम/ Flat No.6 2Nd Floor, 152, M.K. Rd. Vs. Rd. Churchgate Mumbai- Mumbai-400020 (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aaacp3434A "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Nishit Gandhi (Ar) Shri C.W. Angolkar (Dr) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 13/04/2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 29/04/2016 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order: आदेश / O R D E R Per Ashwani Taneja (): This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai-2 {(In Short ‘Cit(A)’}, Dated 22.02.2013 Passed Against

Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ,C,मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “C”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी अ"वनी तनेजा, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Ashwani Taneja, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/s. Palm Court Buildings P. ITO 1(2)(4) Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. बनाम/ Flat No.6 2nd Floor, 152, M.K. Rd. Vs. Rd. Churchgate Mumbai- Mumbai-400020 (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.AAACP3434A "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Shri Nishit Gandhi (AR) Shri C.W. Angolkar (DR) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue by 13/04/2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date…

DCIT 8(2), Mumbai vs. Nishta Mall Management Co. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by revenue is dismissed

ITA 2747/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax-8(2), Mumbai, R. No.216-A, Aayakar Bhavan, Appellant M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Vs. Nishta Mall Management Co. Pvt. Ltd. Knowledge House, Shyam Nagar, Off Jogeshwari-Vikhroli Link Road, Respondent Jogeshwari (East), Mumbai-400060 (Pan: Aaecm0705H) Pan - Aafps5384Q Appellant By: Shri Sanjeev Jain, Dr Respondent By: Shri Nishit Gandhi Date Of Hearing : 30.03.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.04.2016

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Jain, DRFor Respondent: Shri Nishit Gandhi
Section 143(3)

…ging any positive material on record. Accordingly, we do not find any merit to interfere in the order of CIT(A). We further found that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chennai Properties and Investment Ltd. 373 ITR 673 in favour of the assessee for holding that such commercial exploitation renders income from business rather than income from house property.” 5. When this was pointed out to Ld. Sr. DR, he fairly agreed that the issue is covered by Tribunal’s order in assessee’s own case for Asst. Year 2006-07. No contrary decision was pointed out by Ld. Sr. DR a…