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

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

ITA 117/IND/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

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…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle - 1(1), Pune vs. Balkrishnan Shanmugham Chettiar, Alias S. Balan, Pune

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

ITA 112/PUN/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No’S.110, 111 & 112/Pun/2021 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 The Asst. Commissioner Of M/S.Balkrishna Shanmugham Income Tax, Central Circle- Vs Chettiar Alias S. Balan, 1(1), Pune. . 1133/5, Nirankar F.C.Road, Shivaji Nagar, Pune – 411016. Pan: Aalpc 5158 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri M R Bhagwat – Ar Revenue By Shr Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 08/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 16/11/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: These Revenue’S Three Appeals For Ays 2015-16 To 2017-18 Arise Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)-11, Pune’S Separate Orders; All Dated 20.01.2021, Passed In Case Nos.Itba/Apl/S/250/2020-21/1029928824(1), Itba/Apl/S/ 250/2020-21/1029929977(1) & Itba/Apl/S/250/2020- 21/1029930177(1); Respectively, In Proceedings U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

Section 250Section 80Section 80ISection 80i

…perty’. The Co-ordinate Bench of the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of C.R.Developments Pvt Ltd Vs. CIT in ITA No.4277/2012 order dtd. 13/5/2015, after considering the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Chennai Properties and investment Vs. CIT (2015) 373 ITR 673 (SC) has held that on the flats which were unsold, which were neither given on rent or the assessee had intention to let out the flats, no deemed rental income could be considered in assessee’s hands. Also, the co-ordinate Bench of Pune Tribunal in the case of M/s Cosmopolis Construction (in ITA Nos.230 and 231/PUN/2018 dtd. 12/9/2018) after cons…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle - 1(1), Pune vs. Balkrishnan Shanmugham Chettiar, Alias S. Balan, Pune

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

ITA 111/PUN/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No’S.110, 111 & 112/Pun/2021 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 The Asst. Commissioner Of M/S.Balkrishna Shanmugham Income Tax, Central Circle- Vs Chettiar Alias S. Balan, 1(1), Pune. . 1133/5, Nirankar F.C.Road, Shivaji Nagar, Pune – 411016. Pan: Aalpc 5158 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri M R Bhagwat – Ar Revenue By Shr Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 08/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 16/11/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: These Revenue’S Three Appeals For Ays 2015-16 To 2017-18 Arise Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)-11, Pune’S Separate Orders; All Dated 20.01.2021, Passed In Case Nos.Itba/Apl/S/250/2020-21/1029928824(1), Itba/Apl/S/ 250/2020-21/1029929977(1) & Itba/Apl/S/250/2020- 21/1029930177(1); Respectively, In Proceedings U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

Section 250Section 80Section 80ISection 80i

…perty’. The Co-ordinate Bench of the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of C.R.Developments Pvt Ltd Vs. CIT in ITA No.4277/2012 order dtd. 13/5/2015, after considering the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Chennai Properties and investment Vs. CIT (2015) 373 ITR 673 (SC) has held that on the flats which were unsold, which were neither given on rent or the assessee had intention to let out the flats, no deemed rental income could be considered in assessee’s hands. Also, the co-ordinate Bench of Pune Tribunal in the case of M/s Cosmopolis Construction (in ITA Nos.230 and 231/PUN/2018 dtd. 12/9/2018) after cons…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle - 1(1), Pune vs. Balkrishnan Shanmugham Chettiar, Alias S. Balan, Pune

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

ITA 110/PUN/2021[AALPC5158J]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Nov 2022

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No’S.110, 111 & 112/Pun/2021 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 The Asst. Commissioner Of M/S.Balkrishna Shanmugham Income Tax, Central Circle- Vs Chettiar Alias S. Balan, 1(1), Pune. . 1133/5, Nirankar F.C.Road, Shivaji Nagar, Pune – 411016. Pan: Aalpc 5158 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri M R Bhagwat – Ar Revenue By Shr Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 08/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 16/11/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: These Revenue’S Three Appeals For Ays 2015-16 To 2017-18 Arise Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)-11, Pune’S Separate Orders; All Dated 20.01.2021, Passed In Case Nos.Itba/Apl/S/250/2020-21/1029928824(1), Itba/Apl/S/ 250/2020-21/1029929977(1) & Itba/Apl/S/250/2020- 21/1029930177(1); Respectively, In Proceedings U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

Section 250Section 80Section 80ISection 80i

…perty’. The Co-ordinate Bench of the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of C.R.Developments Pvt Ltd Vs. CIT in ITA No.4277/2012 order dtd. 13/5/2015, after considering the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Chennai Properties and investment Vs. CIT (2015) 373 ITR 673 (SC) has held that on the flats which were unsold, which were neither given on rent or the assessee had intention to let out the flats, no deemed rental income could be considered in assessee’s hands. Also, the co-ordinate Bench of Pune Tribunal in the case of M/s Cosmopolis Construction (in ITA Nos.230 and 231/PUN/2018 dtd. 12/9/2018) after cons…

ACIT, Circle-26(1), New Delhi vs. Vg Properties Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, this appeal by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4734/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Nov 2022AY 2014-15
Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Asst. Commissioner of M/s VG Properties Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax 38, DDA Commercial Circle-26(1) Vs. Complex, Zammrudpur Delhi Kailash Colony New Delhi-110 048 PAN-AAACV 2248J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Mr. Bhopal Singh, Senior Departmental Representative (“Sr. DR” for short) Respondent by Mr. Arun Kishore, CA ORDER PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, AM: (A) This appeal by Revenue is filed against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Ta…

The Dy. Commr. of Income Tax, Cir.-1, Jamnagar vs. M/S Seabird Marine Services P. Ltd., Jamnagar

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 282/RJT/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot14 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT D.RFor Respondent: Shri Kapil Sanghavi, A.R
Section 14ASection 40Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 282/Rjt/2016 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) DCIT Vs. M/s. Seabird Marine Services Pvt. Circle-1, Ltd., 215-218 Venus Apptt., Opp. Jamnagar Cricket Bangalow, Jamnagar [PAN No.AACCS9869C] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT D.R. Respondent by : Shri Kapil Sanghavi, A.R. Date of Hearing 06.09.2022 Date of Pronouncement 14.10.2022 O R D E R PER Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE - JM: This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order dated 24.05.2…

Vama Pvt Ltd(Formerly Known As Vama Department Store Pvt Ltd.), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Circle- 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 957/MUM/2020[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Prakash JotwaniFor Respondent: Uranda U. Matkari
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 69C

…ee is engaged in the business of letting out its premises and therefore any income arising from exploiting its business asset would be chargeable to tax under the head Business Income only. Reliance is placed on Supreme court in Chennai Properties reported in 373 ITR 673 and Supreme Court in Rayala Corporation reported in 386 ITR 500 (iv) Without prejudice, in the event your Honour is of the opinion that the same should be taxed under the head 'Income from House Property', then we submit that the same should be computed at the actual rent received from VAIPL and VML, since it is much higher than the Municipal Rat…

Vama Pvt Ltd(Formerly Known As Vama Department Store Pvt Ltd.), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Circle- 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 956/MUM/2020[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Prakash JotwaniFor Respondent: Uranda U. Matkari
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 69C

…ee is engaged in the business of letting out its premises and therefore any income arising from exploiting its business asset would be chargeable to tax under the head Business Income only. Reliance is placed on Supreme court in Chennai Properties reported in 373 ITR 673 and Supreme Court in Rayala Corporation reported in 386 ITR 500 (iv) Without prejudice, in the event your Honour is of the opinion that the same should be taxed under the head 'Income from House Property', then we submit that the same should be computed at the actual rent received from VAIPL and VML, since it is much higher than the Municipal Rat…

Vama Pvt Ltd(Formerly Known As Vama Department Store Pvt Ltd.), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Circle- 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 955/MUM/2020[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Prakash JotwaniFor Respondent: Uranda U. Matkari
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 69C

…ee is engaged in the business of letting out its premises and therefore any income arising from exploiting its business asset would be chargeable to tax under the head Business Income only. Reliance is placed on Supreme court in Chennai Properties reported in 373 ITR 673 and Supreme Court in Rayala Corporation reported in 386 ITR 500 (iv) Without prejudice, in the event your Honour is of the opinion that the same should be taxed under the head 'Income from House Property', then we submit that the same should be computed at the actual rent received from VAIPL and VML, since it is much higher than the Municipal Rat…

Vama Pvt Ltd(Formerly Known As Vama Department Store Pvt Ltd.), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Circle- 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 954/MUM/2020[2003-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2022AY 2003-03

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Prakash JotwaniFor Respondent: Uranda U. Matkari
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 69C

…ee is engaged in the business of letting out its premises and therefore any income arising from exploiting its business asset would be chargeable to tax under the head Business Income only. Reliance is placed on Supreme court in Chennai Properties reported in 373 ITR 673 and Supreme Court in Rayala Corporation reported in 386 ITR 500 (iv) Without prejudice, in the event your Honour is of the opinion that the same should be taxed under the head 'Income from House Property', then we submit that the same should be computed at the actual rent received from VAIPL and VML, since it is much higher than the Municipal Rat…

Vama Pvt Ltd(Formerly Known As Vama Department Store Pvt Ltd.), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Circle- 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 953/MUM/2020[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Prakash JotwaniFor Respondent: Uranda U. Matkari
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 69C

…ee is engaged in the business of letting out its premises and therefore any income arising from exploiting its business asset would be chargeable to tax under the head Business Income only. Reliance is placed on Supreme court in Chennai Properties reported in 373 ITR 673 and Supreme Court in Rayala Corporation reported in 386 ITR 500 (iv) Without prejudice, in the event your Honour is of the opinion that the same should be taxed under the head 'Income from House Property', then we submit that the same should be computed at the actual rent received from VAIPL and VML, since it is much higher than the Municipal Rat…

Vama Pvt Ltd(Formerly Known As Vama Department Store Pvt Ltd.), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Circle- 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 952/MUM/2020[200-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2022

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Prakash JotwaniFor Respondent: Uranda U. Matkari
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 69C

…ee is engaged in the business of letting out its premises and therefore any income arising from exploiting its business asset would be chargeable to tax under the head Business Income only. Reliance is placed on Supreme court in Chennai Properties reported in 373 ITR 673 and Supreme Court in Rayala Corporation reported in 386 ITR 500 (iv) Without prejudice, in the event your Honour is of the opinion that the same should be taxed under the head 'Income from House Property', then we submit that the same should be computed at the actual rent received from VAIPL and VML, since it is much higher than the Municipal Rat…

M/S. Third Eye Estates (India) Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. The ITO 15(3) -1, Mumbai

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

ITA 1538/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2022AY 2013-14
Section 24

…commonly provided in the flats, shops and residential and commercial premises but the assessee can also let out the property. Therefore, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chennai Properties And Investment Ltd. vs. CIT [2015] 373 ITR 673, we are of the view that this issue is no more res integra. We, therefore, confirm the order of the CIT(A) treating the income as "Income from business" in respect of the rent received. 4. We also do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) deleting the disallowance of claim of expenses amounting to Rs.44,33,565/- which ha…

M/S. Embassy Knowledge Infrastructure Projects Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 2(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 982/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjay Kumar S.R., CIT –DR
Section 143(2)Section 24Section 3

…just plain structure with minimum facilities but a special natured building with lot of other infrastructure, amenities which is suitable for schools. 2.1.5. We rely on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd Vs CIT 373 ITR 673. In this case there was a finding of the fact that the main object of the company was to acquire and hold the properties known as "Chennai House" and "Firhavin Estate" and to let out those properties as well as advance on the security of the lands and buildings or other properties or any interest therein. The Supreme Court relying on the above ma…

Wel Intertrade Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 1460/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Before Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year : 2011-12 Wel Intertrade Private Vs. Acit, Circle-27(2), Limited, New Delhi. 5,E Local Shopping Centre Masjid Moth, Greater Kailash Part 2, New Delhi – 110 048 Pan Aaacw10187F (Appellant) (Respondent) Asstt. Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Agarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Takyar, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…ploiting 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 Jt. Comm of Income Tax (OSD) Cent .Cir-6(4), Mumbai vs. M/S D''Decor Properties LLP, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1743/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: This Extended Date, Accordingly, We Hold That There Is No Delay In Filing Of Appeal By The Revenue.

Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…e us. With regard to taxability of rental income under the head „business income‟, we find that the issue is no longer res integra in view of the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd., vs. CIT reported in 373 ITR 673 wherein it was held as under:- 10 M/s. D’décor Properties LLP “5. The Memorandum of Association of the appellant-company which is placed on record mentions main objects as well as incidental or ancillary objects in clause III. (A) and (B) respectively. The main object of the appellant company is to acquire and hold the properties known as "Chen…

Pegasus Properties P. Ltd., Pune vs. Dy CIT, CC-2(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 943/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Shri Dhramveer Singh
Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 22Section 23Section 23(4)

…it is quite clear the Appellant occupies the flats only for purpose of carrying on the business. 16. The Appellant wishes to draw your Honour's attention to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Chennai properties & Investment Ltd vs CIT [2016] 373 ITR 673 (SC), which was delivered after the decision of Ansal Housing (supra). In this decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court after considering the aforesaid decisions referred in the decision of Ansal Housing (supra) has held that where the assessee company engaged in the activity of letting out properties and the rental income received was shown as busine…

ACIT, Circle- 52(1), New Delhi vs. Plaza Partners, New Delhi

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 4763/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 22Section 23(2)Section 24

…ng out and earning rental income there from and also the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Karanpura Development Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal [1962] 44 ITR 362 (SC), Chennai Properties and Investment Ltd. Vs. CIT [2015] 373 ITR 673 (SC) and Rayala Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT [2016] 386 ITR 500 (SC) which are squarely applicable on the facts of the case reaffirming that income from letting out properties should be treated as “Business Income” and not as “Income from House Property”. 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in d…

M/S Regency Property Investments Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 3 (3)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 7972/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Satish ModyFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh Bare

…g the course of hearing before the assessing officer the appellant brought the above facts to the notice of the assessing officer. The appellant also relied upon the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of M/s Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd (373 ITR 673) to substantiate its claim. The assessing officer while finalising the assessment was of the opinion that the income from leasing of the property was to be assessed under the head 'Income from House Property' instead of 'Business Income' as offered by the appellant. While finalising the assessment the assessing officer also did not give the benef…

Nisarg Realtors Pvt Ltd., Thane vs. ACIT 15 (2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7719/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Nisarg Realtors Pvt. Ltd. The Asst. Commissioner Of Office No. 2 & 3, Meezzanine Income–Tax Flr Vihang Vihar Circle 15(2)(1), Vs. 4Th Floor, 403, Aayakar Bhavan, Panchpakahadi, Thane West, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai–400 602 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.Aahca9368D Assessee By : Ms. Nishita Mandalaywala, Ca Revenue By : Shri C.T. Mathews, Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.04.2022

For Appellant: Ms. Nishita Mandalaywala, CAFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews, DR
Section 143(3)Section 194

…) and B(5) assessee can also engage into renting out of the property. The learned Authorized Representative further submitted that the case is squarely covered by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Chennai Properties and Investment Ltd. Vs. CIT 373 ITR 673. Reference was made to paragraph no. 5 of that decision and submitted that assessee has also similar objects in the memorandum of association. Reference was also made to paragraph no. 7, where in the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of East India Housing and Rent Development Trust Ltd. vs. CIT 42 ITR 49 was also discussed. It was stated…