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

Highend Properties Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Hyderabad

In the result, all these appeals are accordingly allowed in part

ITA 2287/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent / Ita Nos. / A.Y. Deputy Commissioner 2284/Hyd/2018 2011-12 Of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad Income Tax Officer, 2285/Hyd/2018 2012-13 Ward-2(3), M/S. Highend Hyderabad Properties Pvt. Ltd., Assistant Hyderabad Commissioner Of [Pan: Aabch7130G] 2286/Hyd/2018 2013-14 Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad Deputy Commissioner 2287/Hyd/2018 2014-15 Of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Ar रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Kumar Aditya, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 21/02/2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement On: 29/03/2023 आदेश / Order Per K. Narasimha Chary, Jm: Aggrieved By The Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Guntur & Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)”), In The Case Of M/S. Highend Properties Pvt. Ltd., (“The Assessee”) For The Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15, Assessees Preferred These

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR

…IFHP. He submitted that though the assessee initially offered the rental income to tax under the head IFHP, subsequently realising the mistake and pursuant to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd vs. CIT 373 ITR 673 (SC), he desires to offer the same under PGBP which is legal and proper. According to him, the activity of purchase of property whether for investment or for sale or “working in same” includes the activity of leasing out to derive income and, therefore, the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd.,…

Highend Properties Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Hyderabad

In the result, all these appeals are accordingly allowed in part

ITA 2286/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent / Ita Nos. / A.Y. Deputy Commissioner 2284/Hyd/2018 2011-12 Of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad Income Tax Officer, 2285/Hyd/2018 2012-13 Ward-2(3), M/S. Highend Hyderabad Properties Pvt. Ltd., Assistant Hyderabad Commissioner Of [Pan: Aabch7130G] 2286/Hyd/2018 2013-14 Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad Deputy Commissioner 2287/Hyd/2018 2014-15 Of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Ar रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Kumar Aditya, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 21/02/2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement On: 29/03/2023 आदेश / Order Per K. Narasimha Chary, Jm: Aggrieved By The Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Guntur & Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)”), In The Case Of M/S. Highend Properties Pvt. Ltd., (“The Assessee”) For The Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15, Assessees Preferred These

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR

…IFHP. He submitted that though the assessee initially offered the rental income to tax under the head IFHP, subsequently realising the mistake and pursuant to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd vs. CIT 373 ITR 673 (SC), he desires to offer the same under PGBP which is legal and proper. According to him, the activity of purchase of property whether for investment or for sale or “working in same” includes the activity of leasing out to derive income and, therefore, the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd.,…

Highend Properties Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Hyderabad

In the result, all these appeals are accordingly allowed in part

ITA 2285/HYD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent / Ita Nos. / A.Y. Deputy Commissioner 2284/Hyd/2018 2011-12 Of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad Income Tax Officer, 2285/Hyd/2018 2012-13 Ward-2(3), M/S. Highend Hyderabad Properties Pvt. Ltd., Assistant Hyderabad Commissioner Of [Pan: Aabch7130G] 2286/Hyd/2018 2013-14 Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad Deputy Commissioner 2287/Hyd/2018 2014-15 Of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Ar रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Kumar Aditya, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 21/02/2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement On: 29/03/2023 आदेश / Order Per K. Narasimha Chary, Jm: Aggrieved By The Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Guntur & Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)”), In The Case Of M/S. Highend Properties Pvt. Ltd., (“The Assessee”) For The Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15, Assessees Preferred These

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR

…IFHP. He submitted that though the assessee initially offered the rental income to tax under the head IFHP, subsequently realising the mistake and pursuant to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd vs. CIT 373 ITR 673 (SC), he desires to offer the same under PGBP which is legal and proper. According to him, the activity of purchase of property whether for investment or for sale or “working in same” includes the activity of leasing out to derive income and, therefore, the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd.,…

Highend Properties Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad

In the result, all these appeals are accordingly allowed in part

ITA 2284/HYD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent / Ita Nos. / A.Y. Deputy Commissioner 2284/Hyd/2018 2011-12 Of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad Income Tax Officer, 2285/Hyd/2018 2012-13 Ward-2(3), M/S. Highend Hyderabad Properties Pvt. Ltd., Assistant Hyderabad Commissioner Of [Pan: Aabch7130G] 2286/Hyd/2018 2013-14 Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad Deputy Commissioner 2287/Hyd/2018 2014-15 Of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Ar रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Kumar Aditya, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 21/02/2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement On: 29/03/2023 आदेश / Order Per K. Narasimha Chary, Jm: Aggrieved By The Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Guntur & Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)”), In The Case Of M/S. Highend Properties Pvt. Ltd., (“The Assessee”) For The Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15, Assessees Preferred These

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR

…IFHP. He submitted that though the assessee initially offered the rental income to tax under the head IFHP, subsequently realising the mistake and pursuant to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd vs. CIT 373 ITR 673 (SC), he desires to offer the same under PGBP which is legal and proper. According to him, the activity of purchase of property whether for investment or for sale or “working in same” includes the activity of leasing out to derive income and, therefore, the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd.,…

PCIT-07, Delhi vs. M/S Wel Intertrade Pvt. Ltd

ITA - 135 / 2023HC Delhi07 Mar 2023
Section 36(1)(iii)Section 68

…ing the property for the purpose of business. Therefore the impugned income from Business Centre is assessable as business income and not as income from house property. In support, reliance is placed on Chennai Properties & Investment Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 373 ITR 673 (SC); Rayala Corporation (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT (2016) 386 ITR 500 (SC); PCIT vs. Sri Bharathi Warehousing Corporation (2017) 392 ITR 160 (AP). 6.8.4 Likewise, it is submitted that the amount of Rs.13,43,161/- received by way of reimbursement of expenses forms part of business receipt and had the same character i.e. as income from Business Centre…

The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -3, Srinagar vs. M/S Jyoti Limited, Srinagar

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

ITA 612/ASR/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 24Section 250

…tion made by the AO on account of ALV, was reduced to amount of Rs.68,63,054/- and deduction therefrom @ 30% Was allowed to the assessee u/s 24 of the Act. The contention onbehalf of the assessee is that in ‘Chennai Properties and InvestmentsLimited Vs. CIT’, 373 ITR 673 (SC), it has been held that where in termsof the memorandum of association of company, the main object of such company is to' acquire properties and to earn income by letting out the same, such income is taxable as business income and not as income from house property. The assessee covers that this ratio handed down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court,…

The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 (1) (3), Rajkot vs. M/S. Tirupati Agencies, Rajkot

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 365/RJT/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot22 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 362 To 365/Rjt/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2011-12) Income-Tax Officer M/S. Tirupati Agencies बनाम/ Ward-1(1)(3), Rajkot Prasang Commercial Vs. Complex, Nr. Chitralekha Apartment, 150 Ft. Ring Road, Rajkot "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacft0834H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Cit. D.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से / Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R. Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 12/12/2022 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 22/02/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: All Four Appeals At The Instance Of The Revenue Are Directed Against The Orders All Dated 05.07.2018 Passed By The Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 1, Rajkot (The Cit(A)), Arising Out Of The Assessment Orders All Dated 29.03.2016 Passed By The Learned Ito, Ward 1(1)(3), Rajkot Under Section

For Appellant: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT. D.R
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 147Section 153Section 153A

…by the Ld. CIT(A) submitted that the issue is squarely covered by the judgment passed ITA Nos. 362 to 365/Rjt/2018 ITO vs. M/s. Tirupati Agencies - 5- the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of M/s. Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. vs. CIT, reported in (2015) 373 ITR 673] (SC). Such contention made by the assessee, however, has not been able to be controverted by the Ld. DR. A copy of the said judgment has also been submitted before us. The relevant paragraph whereof is reproduced herein below: “We have heard the learned counsel for the parties on the aforesaid issue. Before we narrate the legal principle that n…

The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 (1) (3), Rajkot vs. M/S. Tirupati Agencies, Rajkot

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 364/RJT/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot22 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 362 To 365/Rjt/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2011-12) Income-Tax Officer M/S. Tirupati Agencies बनाम/ Ward-1(1)(3), Rajkot Prasang Commercial Vs. Complex, Nr. Chitralekha Apartment, 150 Ft. Ring Road, Rajkot "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacft0834H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Cit. D.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से / Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R. Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 12/12/2022 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 22/02/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: All Four Appeals At The Instance Of The Revenue Are Directed Against The Orders All Dated 05.07.2018 Passed By The Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 1, Rajkot (The Cit(A)), Arising Out Of The Assessment Orders All Dated 29.03.2016 Passed By The Learned Ito, Ward 1(1)(3), Rajkot Under Section

For Appellant: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT. D.R
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 147Section 153Section 153A

…by the Ld. CIT(A) submitted that the issue is squarely covered by the judgment passed ITA Nos. 362 to 365/Rjt/2018 ITO vs. M/s. Tirupati Agencies - 5- the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of M/s. Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. vs. CIT, reported in (2015) 373 ITR 673] (SC). Such contention made by the assessee, however, has not been able to be controverted by the Ld. DR. A copy of the said judgment has also been submitted before us. The relevant paragraph whereof is reproduced herein below: “We have heard the learned counsel for the parties on the aforesaid issue. Before we narrate the legal principle that n…

The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 (1) (3), Rajkot vs. M/S. Tirupati Agencies, Rajkot

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 363/RJT/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot22 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 362 To 365/Rjt/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2011-12) Income-Tax Officer M/S. Tirupati Agencies बनाम/ Ward-1(1)(3), Rajkot Prasang Commercial Vs. Complex, Nr. Chitralekha Apartment, 150 Ft. Ring Road, Rajkot "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacft0834H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Cit. D.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से / Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R. Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 12/12/2022 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 22/02/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: All Four Appeals At The Instance Of The Revenue Are Directed Against The Orders All Dated 05.07.2018 Passed By The Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 1, Rajkot (The Cit(A)), Arising Out Of The Assessment Orders All Dated 29.03.2016 Passed By The Learned Ito, Ward 1(1)(3), Rajkot Under Section

For Appellant: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT. D.R
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 147Section 153Section 153A

…by the Ld. CIT(A) submitted that the issue is squarely covered by the judgment passed ITA Nos. 362 to 365/Rjt/2018 ITO vs. M/s. Tirupati Agencies - 5- the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of M/s. Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. vs. CIT, reported in (2015) 373 ITR 673] (SC). Such contention made by the assessee, however, has not been able to be controverted by the Ld. DR. A copy of the said judgment has also been submitted before us. The relevant paragraph whereof is reproduced herein below: “We have heard the learned counsel for the parties on the aforesaid issue. Before we narrate the legal principle that n…

The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 (1) (3), Rajkot vs. M/S. Tirupati Agencies, Rajkot

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 362/RJT/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot22 Feb 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 362 To 365/Rjt/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2011-12) Income-Tax Officer M/S. Tirupati Agencies बनाम/ Ward-1(1)(3), Rajkot Prasang Commercial Vs. Complex, Nr. Chitralekha Apartment, 150 Ft. Ring Road, Rajkot "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacft0834H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Cit. D.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से / Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R. Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 12/12/2022 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 22/02/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: All Four Appeals At The Instance Of The Revenue Are Directed Against The Orders All Dated 05.07.2018 Passed By The Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 1, Rajkot (The Cit(A)), Arising Out Of The Assessment Orders All Dated 29.03.2016 Passed By The Learned Ito, Ward 1(1)(3), Rajkot Under Section

For Appellant: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT. D.R
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 147Section 153Section 153A

…by the Ld. CIT(A) submitted that the issue is squarely covered by the judgment passed ITA Nos. 362 to 365/Rjt/2018 ITO vs. M/s. Tirupati Agencies - 5- the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of M/s. Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. vs. CIT, reported in (2015) 373 ITR 673] (SC). Such contention made by the assessee, however, has not been able to be controverted by the Ld. DR. A copy of the said judgment has also been submitted before us. The relevant paragraph whereof is reproduced herein below: “We have heard the learned counsel for the parties on the aforesaid issue. Before we narrate the legal principle that n…

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-6(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Jay Properties Private Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 2572/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Dy. Cit, Circle-6(1)(2) Jay Properties Private Limited 18Th Floor, A-Wing, Marathon Mumbai Vs. Futurex, N.M. Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 013

For Appellant: Shri Jay BhansaliFor Respondent: Shri Yashwant Kumar Bhaskar
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 23Section 24ASection 250Section 37(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM Dy. CIT, Circle-6(1)(2) Jay Properties Private Limited 18th Floor, A-Wing, Marathon Mumbai Vs. Futurex, N.M. Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 013 PAN/GIR No. AAACJ 1369 C (Appellant) (Respondent) : Assessee by : Shri Jay Bhansali Revenue by : Shri Yashwant Kumar Bhaskar Date of Hearing : 12.01.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 09.02.2023 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This is an appeal filed by the Revenue, challenging the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (‘…

Rvm Education (P) Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle- 20(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6067/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 24

…ted the findings of the lower authorities. 8. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the orders of the authorities below. At the very outset we would like to refer to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Chennai Properties and Investment 373 ITR 673 wherein the Hon'ble observed as under :- 8. Before we refer to the Constitution Bench judgment in the case of Sultan Brothers (P.) Ltd., we would be well advised to discuss the law laid down authoritatively and succinctly by this court in Karanpura Development Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1962] 44 ITR 362 (SC). That was also a case where the company, which w…

ITO Ward -26(1), New Delhi vs. Vg Properties Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4901/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Arun Kishor, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 80Section 801D

…e main object clause of MOA is to “to carry on the business as developers, promoters for commercial and industrial buildings." 4. On the facts and circumstance of the case the Ld.ClT(A) erred in relying on Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd. V. C1T [2015] 373 ITR 673 as facts are completely different and without appreciating the judgement given by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Raj Dadarkar & Associates v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-46 [2017] 394 ITR 592 (SC). 5. On the facts and circumstance of the case the Ld. CIT(A) erred in relying on the principal of consistency as the Hon’ble Delhi High…

Taxila Gurukul P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-25(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7707/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 201Section 24Section 40Section 4o

…he CIT(A) and read operative part of the order. 10. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the orders of the authorities below. The undisputed fact is that the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chennai Properties and Investments 373 ITR 673 squarely apply on the facts of the case, therefore, there is no error or infirmity in the decision of the CIT(A) wherein rental income has been taxed under the head profits and gains of business or profession. Once the income has been held to be taxed under the head profits and gains of business or profession the same has to be computed as per t…

Pawa Builders Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 19(2), New Delhi

In the result, Assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 3830/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry[Assessment Year: 2014-15]

Section 22Section 250(6)

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2014-15] Pawa Builders Pvt. Ltd., V DCIT, Circle-1992), Rohit Malik & Associates, s New Delhi. CAs, 1212A, Chiranjiv Tower, 43, Nehru Place, new Delhi-110019 PAN:AAACP4231F APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & by: Sh. Somil Agarwal, Adv. Department represented Sh.Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR by: Date of hearing 28.12.2022 30.12.2022 Date of pronouncement O R D E R PER N.K.CHOUDHRY, JM: 2 The Assessee has p…

Chhattisgarh State Warehousing Corporation, Raipur vs. Assistant Commssioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(3), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 68/RPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur22 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri G D Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 68/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Chhattisgarh State Warehousing Corporation Head Office, Village-Jhanjh, Sector-24, Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan:Aaccc1774E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(3). Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Mahawar, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.K Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…assessee that income from warehousing was rightly disclosed by it as its business income. The assessee in support of its said claim had relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd. Vs. CIT (2015) 373 ITR 673 (SC), wherein it was held that the entire income derived from rent by the assessee before them was liable to be brought to tax as its business income. Apart from that, it was the claim of the assessee that the ITAT, Raipur Bench in assessee’s own case for A.Y.2003-04 to 2008-09 in ITA No. 18 & 19/BLPR/2010, ITA Nos. 27/BLPR/2011 to 30/BLPR/2011 &…

The DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad vs. Ashrita Construction Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1272/AHD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Satish Solanki, Sr. DR
Section 22

…AR relied upon the following decisions:- ACIT vs. Shoppers Buildcon – IT(SS)A No.312/Ahd/2018 Sarovar Developers P. Ltd. vs. ITO – ITA No.2625/Ahd/2017 Servashanti Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO – ITA No.1278/Ahd/2017 Chennai Properties & Investments vs. CIT – 373 ITR 673 (SC) CIT vs. Neha Builders – 296 ITR 661 (Guj) 7. As regards Section 23(5) of the Act, the Ld. AR submitted that where property is held as “stock in trade” and the same is not let out, then annual value of such property for the period up to one year from the end of financial year in which certificate of completion of construction of the property…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax -3 (1), Indore vs. M/S M.P. Entertainment and Developers Private Limited, Indore

ITA 203/IND/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kamal Garg & Arpit GaurFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mitra, CIT-DR
Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 22Section 23Section 28

…ome from business and not under the head from income from house property, relying on Hon’ble Apex Court’s decision in the cases of M/s. Rayala Corporation Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (2016) 386 ITR 500 (SC) and M/s. Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 373 ITR 673 (SC) which are in respect of the assessee company involved in earning of rental income from letting out of properties only and are distinguishable on facts & circumstances of the present case and the decision of Shambhau Investment relied on by the AO is neither discussed nor over ruled. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case Ld. C…

The DCIT-3(1), Indore vs. M/S. M.P. Entertainment & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Indore

ITA 344/IND/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kamal Garg & Arpit GaurFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mitra, CIT-DR
Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 22Section 23Section 28

…ome from business and not under the head from income from house property, relying on Hon’ble Apex Court’s decision in the cases of M/s. Rayala Corporation Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (2016) 386 ITR 500 (SC) and M/s. Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 373 ITR 673 (SC) which are in respect of the assessee company involved in earning of rental income from letting out of properties only and are distinguishable on facts & circumstances of the present case and the decision of Shambhau Investment relied on by the AO is neither discussed nor over ruled. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case Ld. C…

The DCIT-3(1), Indore vs. M/S. M.P. Entertainment & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Indore

ITA 118/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kamal Garg & Arpit GaurFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mitra, CIT-DR
Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 22Section 23Section 28

…ome from business and not under the head from income from house property, relying on Hon’ble Apex Court’s decision in the cases of M/s. Rayala Corporation Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (2016) 386 ITR 500 (SC) and M/s. Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 373 ITR 673 (SC) which are in respect of the assessee company involved in earning of rental income from letting out of properties only and are distinguishable on facts & circumstances of the present case and the decision of Shambhau Investment relied on by the AO is neither discussed nor over ruled. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case Ld. C…