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

D.C.I.T.-15(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Haware Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Navi Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 3627/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Ruturaj Gurjar (AR)For Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh Anand (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 22

…h the view taken by the Hon‟ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT Vs. Neha Builders Pvt. ltd. (2008) 296 ITR 661 (Guj), and further relying on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. Vs. CIT (2015) 377 ITR 673 (SC), had observed, that the income generated by an assessee who was engaged in the business of acquiring and holding properties from such source would be its „business income‟ and not its income under the head „house property‟. Also, we find that the Tribunal while disposing off the appeal in the case of the „sister concern‟ of the assessee in H…

Suryavardhan Estates (P) Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

ITA 697/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 462/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Dcit, M/S. Suryavaradhan Corporate Circle 6(2), V. Estates Pvt. Ltd., 6Th Floor, Dhun Building, Chennai. No.827, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002. Pan: Aajcs 5120M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:697/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012 - 13 M/S. Suryavaradhan Estates The Acit, Pvt. Ltd., V. Corporate Circle 6, 6Th Floor, Dhun Building, Chennai. No.827, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002. Pan: Aajcs 5120M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & C.O. No.: 36/Chny/2017 (In I.T.A. No. 462/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012 – 13 M/S. Suryavaradhan Estates The Dcit, Pvt. Ltd., V. Corporate Circle 6(2), 6Th Floor, Dhun Building, Chennai. No.827, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002. Pan: Aajcs 5120M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Helen Ruby Jesintha, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)

…s not been raised. 7. As regards to the assessment of income in respect of Victoria Towers, i.e., notional ALV of residential apartments, the CIT(A) in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd., [2015] 373 ITR 673 decided the issue and directed the AO to verify the activity of the company in consonance with its main objects and also verify the 7 I.T.A. Nos.462 & 697/Chny/2017 & C.O. No.36/Chny/2017 Memorandum of Association. The CIT(A) directed the AO vide para 4.3 as under:- “4.3 The matter is considered. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its decision of M/s.…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Suryavardhan Estates Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

ITA 462/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 462/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Dcit, M/S. Suryavaradhan Corporate Circle 6(2), V. Estates Pvt. Ltd., 6Th Floor, Dhun Building, Chennai. No.827, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002. Pan: Aajcs 5120M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:697/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012 - 13 M/S. Suryavaradhan Estates The Acit, Pvt. Ltd., V. Corporate Circle 6, 6Th Floor, Dhun Building, Chennai. No.827, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002. Pan: Aajcs 5120M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & C.O. No.: 36/Chny/2017 (In I.T.A. No. 462/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012 – 13 M/S. Suryavaradhan Estates The Dcit, Pvt. Ltd., V. Corporate Circle 6(2), 6Th Floor, Dhun Building, Chennai. No.827, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002. Pan: Aajcs 5120M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Helen Ruby Jesintha, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)

…s not been raised. 7. As regards to the assessment of income in respect of Victoria Towers, i.e., notional ALV of residential apartments, the CIT(A) in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd., [2015] 373 ITR 673 decided the issue and directed the AO to verify the activity of the company in consonance with its main objects and also verify the 7 I.T.A. Nos.462 & 697/Chny/2017 & C.O. No.36/Chny/2017 Memorandum of Association. The CIT(A) directed the AO vide para 4.3 as under:- “4.3 The matter is considered. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its decision of M/s.…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 1 Kolkata vs. M/S Ganesh Realty and Mall Development Pvt Ltd

Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same stands dismissed

ITAT/66/2021HC Calcutta11 Feb 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Section 143(3)Section 260A

…OD- 24 & 25 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction (Income Tax) ORIGINAL SIDE IA NO.GA/1/2021 ITAT 66/2021 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1, KOLKATA -Versus- M/S. GANESH REALTY AND MALL DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD. IA NO.GA/2/2021 ITAT 66/2021 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1, KOLKATA -Versus- M/S. GANESH REALTY AND MALL DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD. Appearance: Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv. ...for the appellant. Mr. Vivek Murarka, Adv. For the respondent. BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM -And- The Hon’ble JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Date : 11th F…

M/S. Nirman Homes, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 3(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 109/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Feb 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kumar Singh Yadav
Section 143(3)Section 23(1)Section 23(4)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80

…m house property". I further find that the Co-ordinate Bench of the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of C.R. Developments Pvt. Ltd., Vs. CIT (supra) after considering the decision 0 Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chennai Properies and Investments vs. CIT (2015) 373 ITR 673 (SC) has held that on the flats which were unsold, which were neither given on rent nor the assessee had intention to let out the flats , no deemed rental income could be considered in assessee's hands.' I further find that the Co-ordinate Bench of Pune Tribunal in the case of M/s. Cosmopolis Construction (supra) after considering the decision of…

Sophia Automotive Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. ITO, Corp Ward -6(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in I

ITA 322/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.322/Chny/2019 & 3383/Chnyh/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2011-12 M/S. Sophia Automotive Private The Income Tax Officer, Limited, No. 2F(Np), Sidco Industrial Vs. Corporate Ward 6(3), Estate, Ambattur, Chennai 600 098. Chennai 34. [Pan:Aaics6884P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.01.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.01.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 16, Chennai Dated 30.11.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13 & Order Dated 19.09.2018 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. When The Appeal In I.T.A. No. 322/Chny/2019 For The Assessment Year 2012-13 Was Taken Up For Hearing, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Submitted That The Appeal Filed Before The Ld. Cit(A) Was Dismissed On The Ground That The Delay In Filing The Appeal Before The 2

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…head ‘house property’, the assessee is not eligible for claim of depreciation. The ground of appeal on the issue is therefore dismissed.” We have gone through the judgement relied upon by the assessee in the case of Chennai Properties and Investments Limited 373 ITR 673 (SC), wherein, the main object of the assessee-company, as stated in its memorandum of association, was to acquire and hold the properties known as “Chennai House” and “Firhavin Estate” both in Chennai and to let out those properties as well as make advances upon the security of lands and buildings or other properties or any interest therein. The…

Sophia Automotive Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. ITO, Corp Ward -6(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in I

ITA 3383/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.322/Chny/2019 & 3383/Chnyh/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2011-12 M/S. Sophia Automotive Private The Income Tax Officer, Limited, No. 2F(Np), Sidco Industrial Vs. Corporate Ward 6(3), Estate, Ambattur, Chennai 600 098. Chennai 34. [Pan:Aaics6884P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.01.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.01.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 16, Chennai Dated 30.11.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13 & Order Dated 19.09.2018 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. When The Appeal In I.T.A. No. 322/Chny/2019 For The Assessment Year 2012-13 Was Taken Up For Hearing, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Submitted That The Appeal Filed Before The Ld. Cit(A) Was Dismissed On The Ground That The Delay In Filing The Appeal Before The 2

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…head ‘house property’, the assessee is not eligible for claim of depreciation. The ground of appeal on the issue is therefore dismissed.” We have gone through the judgement relied upon by the assessee in the case of Chennai Properties and Investments Limited 373 ITR 673 (SC), wherein, the main object of the assessee-company, as stated in its memorandum of association, was to acquire and hold the properties known as “Chennai House” and “Firhavin Estate” both in Chennai and to let out those properties as well as make advances upon the security of lands and buildings or other properties or any interest therein. The…

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

In the result the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 350/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2021AY 2016-17
Section 153CSection 23

…houses, shops etc and let out the same and derive rental income. In any case, principle laid down in Mangla Homes Pvt. Ltd., had been subsequently reversed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chennai Properties and Investment Ltd., vs. CIT reported in 373 ITR 673. We also find that the charging provisions of Section 22 of the Act specifically gives exemption from determination of actual value of the property which is used for the purpose of any business or provision carried on by the assessee. There is no dispute that the assessee had retained the unsold stock of flats as stock in trade in the capacity of…

Shri. Ravi Advani, Mumbai vs. Int Tax Ward 1 (1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 261/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Hon'Bleshri Ravi Advani V. Income Tax Officer – 1(1)(1) 11Th Floor, Regency Terrace Room No. 1604, 16Th Floor 17Th Road, Khar (W) Air India Building Mumbai – 400050 Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Adipa9857C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mukesh Advani Department By : Ms. Neha Thakur

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh AdvaniFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Thakur
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 22Section 24

…ing out of the properties under the head “Income from Business & Profession” and not under the head “Income from House Properties”. 2) Taking into consideration Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Chennai Properties & Investment Ltd., which is reported in 373 ITR 673(copy enclosed herewith), wherein, it was held that if the main objects of the company are to lease out the properties”, then, the Income generated from such business will be taxable under the head “Income from Business & Profession” and not under the head “Income from House Property” a) It would not be out of place to submit here that the Assesse…

ACIT, CC- 6(2), Chennai vs. S.N. Damani Infra Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3324/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3324/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assistant Commissioner Of Income S.N. Damani Infra Pvt. Ltd., Tax, V. No. 6, Ground Floor, Corporate Circle 6 (2), Rayala Tower, Chennai. 781-785, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002. [Pan: Aaocs 0334C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. D. Anand, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 09.11.2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2021 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri. D. Anand, Advocate
Section 24

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए ’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "संह, उपा"य" एवं एवं "ी जी. मंजुनाथ, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 3324/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assistant Commissioner of Income S.N. Damani Infra Pvt. Ltd., Tax, v. No. 6, Ground Floor, Corporate Circle 6 (2), Rayala Tower, Chennai. 781-785, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002. [PAN: AAOCS 0334C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri. AR V Sreenivasan, Addl.…

M/S. Artcia Construction, Mumbai vs. ACIT-29(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1521/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Blem/S. Aricia Construction V. Acit -29(1) 1501, 15Th Floor, B-Wing C-10, 1St Floor, Room No. 108 02 Commercial Complex Pratyakshkar Bhavan Opp. Asha Nagar, Mulund(W) Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai-400080 Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400051 Pan: Aaofa9504F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dilip Shah Department By : Shri Sanjay J. Sethi

For Appellant: Shri Dilip ShahFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay J. Sethi
Section 143(3)

…dering the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ansal Housing Finance & Leasing Co. Ltd. (supra) which the AO relied upon and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 373 ITR 673, held that unsold flats which are in stock in trade should be assessed under the head ‘business income’ and there is no justification in estimating rental income from those flats and notionally computing annual letting value under Section 23 of the Act. While holding so the Coordinate Bench observed as under: - “3. The ld. AR placed the order of…

Shri Shanthilal Movji Bhai, Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward - 6 (4), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1346/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1344, 1345 & 1346/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Mr. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 22Section 23Section 27

…to whether the activity in question was in the nature of business by which it could be said that income received by the appellant was to be treated as income from the business. In the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. (373 ITR 673), the entire income of the assessee was through letting out of the properties it owned and there was no other income of the assessee except the income from letting out of the said properties, which was the business of the assessee. Accordingly, the claim of the assessee as business income was accepted by Hon'ble Apex Court in Chennai Properties &…

Shri Shanthilal Movji Bhai, Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward - 6 (4), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1345/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1344, 1345 & 1346/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Mr. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 22Section 23Section 27

…to whether the activity in question was in the nature of business by which it could be said that income received by the appellant was to be treated as income from the business. In the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. (373 ITR 673), the entire income of the assessee was through letting out of the properties it owned and there was no other income of the assessee except the income from letting out of the said properties, which was the business of the assessee. Accordingly, the claim of the assessee as business income was accepted by Hon'ble Apex Court in Chennai Properties &…

Shri Shanthilal Movji Bhai, Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward - 6 (4), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1344/CHNY/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Nov 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1344, 1345 & 1346/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Mr. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 22Section 23Section 27

…to whether the activity in question was in the nature of business by which it could be said that income received by the appellant was to be treated as income from the business. In the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. (373 ITR 673), the entire income of the assessee was through letting out of the properties it owned and there was no other income of the assessee except the income from letting out of the said properties, which was the business of the assessee. Accordingly, the claim of the assessee as business income was accepted by Hon'ble Apex Court in Chennai Properties &…

Shri Shanthilal Movji Bhai, Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward - 6 (4), Chennai

The appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 2270/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Nov 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.2267 To 2270/Chny/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2014-15 To 2016-17) Shri Shanthilal Movji Bhai Thakker The Income Tax Officer, बनाम/ 88/A, Dr.Allagappa Road, Corporate Ward-6(4), Vs. Purasawalkam, Chennai-600 084. Chennai. थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacpt-9083-C (अपीलाथ-/Appellant) : (01थ- / Respondent) अपीलाथ-कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri D.Anand- Advocate 01थ-कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri G.Johnson – Ld. Addl. Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 12/10/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 03/11/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri D.Anand- AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.Johnson – Ld. Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 269USection 27Section 36(1)(iii)

…assessee has been assessed as ‘income from House Property’ as against ‘Business Income’ offered by the assessee. The Ld. AR advanced arguments and placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in M/s Chennai Properties & Investment Pvt. Ltd. V/s CIT (373 ITR 673). The Ld. DR, on the other hand, supported the assessment framed by Ld.AO. Having heard rival submissions, our adjudication would be as under. 4. The material facts are that the assessee being resident individual obtained a property situated at Manish Market, Chennai on lease for a period of 27 years and sub-leased the same to various persons. Th…

Shri Shanthilal Movji Bhai, Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward - 6 (4), Chennai

The appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 2269/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Nov 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.2267 To 2270/Chny/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2014-15 To 2016-17) Shri Shanthilal Movji Bhai Thakker The Income Tax Officer, बनाम/ 88/A, Dr.Allagappa Road, Corporate Ward-6(4), Vs. Purasawalkam, Chennai-600 084. Chennai. थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacpt-9083-C (अपीलाथ-/Appellant) : (01थ- / Respondent) अपीलाथ-कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri D.Anand- Advocate 01थ-कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri G.Johnson – Ld. Addl. Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 12/10/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 03/11/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri D.Anand- AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.Johnson – Ld. Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 269USection 27Section 36(1)(iii)

…assessee has been assessed as ‘income from House Property’ as against ‘Business Income’ offered by the assessee. The Ld. AR advanced arguments and placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in M/s Chennai Properties & Investment Pvt. Ltd. V/s CIT (373 ITR 673). The Ld. DR, on the other hand, supported the assessment framed by Ld.AO. Having heard rival submissions, our adjudication would be as under. 4. The material facts are that the assessee being resident individual obtained a property situated at Manish Market, Chennai on lease for a period of 27 years and sub-leased the same to various persons. Th…

Shri Shanthilal Movji Bhai, Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward - 6 (4), Chennai

The appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 2268/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.2267 To 2270/Chny/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2014-15 To 2016-17) Shri Shanthilal Movji Bhai Thakker The Income Tax Officer, बनाम/ 88/A, Dr.Allagappa Road, Corporate Ward-6(4), Vs. Purasawalkam, Chennai-600 084. Chennai. थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacpt-9083-C (अपीलाथ-/Appellant) : (01थ- / Respondent) अपीलाथ-कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri D.Anand- Advocate 01थ-कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri G.Johnson – Ld. Addl. Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 12/10/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 03/11/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri D.Anand- AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.Johnson – Ld. Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 269USection 27Section 36(1)(iii)

…assessee has been assessed as ‘income from House Property’ as against ‘Business Income’ offered by the assessee. The Ld. AR advanced arguments and placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in M/s Chennai Properties & Investment Pvt. Ltd. V/s CIT (373 ITR 673). The Ld. DR, on the other hand, supported the assessment framed by Ld.AO. Having heard rival submissions, our adjudication would be as under. 4. The material facts are that the assessee being resident individual obtained a property situated at Manish Market, Chennai on lease for a period of 27 years and sub-leased the same to various persons. Th…

Shri Jaiprkash Khanchand Aswani, Surat vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1(2), Surat

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 160/SRT/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Shri Jaiprakash Khanchand The Assistant Aswani, Commissioner Of Income Vs Rmr & Co. (Chartered Tax, Circle-1(2), Surat. Accountants), 7006, World Trade Centre, 7Th Floor, Ring Road, Near Udhna Darwaja, Surat – 395 002. Pan: Aaspa 3016 C Assessee / Appellant Revenue /Respondent

Section 147Section 254(1)

…dering the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ansal Housing Finance & Leasing Co. Ltd. (supra) which the AO relied upon and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 373 ITR 673, held that unsold flats which are in stock in trade should be assessed under the head ‘business income’ and there is no justification in estimating rental income from those flats are notionally computing annual letting value under Section 23 of the Act. While holding so the Coordinate Bench observed as under :- “3. The ld. AR placed the order of…

ACIT (OSD) Corporate Circle 4(2), Chennai vs. Kka Buildtech Private Limited, Chennai

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

ITA 1159/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1159/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Mr. Suresh Periasamy, JCITFor Respondent: Mr. R. Sricharan, C.A
Section 22

…ee therefore, the lease rental income received by the assessee has to be treated as a business income and he also relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. v. CIT, Central-III, Tamil Nadu [2015] 373 ITR 673 (SC) and submitted that the issue is squarely covered. The Ld. CIT(A) by considering the submissions of the assessee and the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. v. CIT (supra), he has I.T.A No.1159/Chny/2019 :- 4 -: observed that the assessee-company is fully entitled to show its income under t…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Hyderabad vs. Cache Properties Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 124/HYD/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Respondent: Sri Rohit Mujumdar, D.R
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 263

…wherein it was held that – the assessee-company was engaged in the business of leasing out its house properties to earn rent, income so earned should be treated as ‘business income’ and not as ‘income from ii. Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd., Vs. CIT [373 ITR 673] (SC), wherein it was held that – in terms of MOA, main object of the assessee-company was to acquire properties and earn income by letting out of the same, said income was to be brought to tax as business income and not as income from house property; 6.1. Ld.DR also submitted that assessee’s reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court…