How many judgments cite Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. v. CIT?

381 judgments on BharatTax cite Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. v. CIT (373 ITR 673), spanning 2011 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 1961, Section 14A, Section 22, Section 24, Section 23.

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 1961 Section 14A Section 22 Section 24 Section 23 Section 263 Section 32

Issues it is cited on

annual letting value section 23(1)annual value house property income section 35d section 22 put to use section 45 section 35 profits and gains of business or profession section 32 revenue expenditure

Judgments citing Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. v. CIT

Ferani Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - CC- 4 (1), Mumbai

In the result, these appeals by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 2022/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Section 14ASection 22Section 80I

…ncome-tax Appellate Tribunal judgment in the case of M/s. C.R. Developments Pvt. Ltd. v/s JCIT-8(1)(OSD), Mumbai (ITA No. 42777 Mum/2012) which was relied on Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Chennai Properties & Investments Limited v/s CIT (2015) 373 ITR 673 (SC). 2 Ferani Hotels Pvt. Ltd. 3. Brief facts are that the assessee filed its return of income on 30.09.2013 declaring a total income of Rs. NIL, In the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee has earned dividend income of Rs 43,97,077/-. It was further observed by the AO that the assessee was maintaining a common p…

Asha Business Centre Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 11(1), Bangalore

In the result appeals filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 963/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

…Page 6 of 8 ITA Nos.963 & 964/Bang/2019 Ld.CIT(A). Though the first Appellate Authority has coterminous powers with that of the Ld.AO, there is nothing on record to establish that the Ld.CIT(A) issued notice to assessee before treating the income earned from letting out of commercial complex (bare shell) as business income. 4.4 In our view, the treatment of income earned by the assessee from hire charges from letting out of furniture fixtures and commercial complex (bare shell) needs to be considered in accordance with law. In the interest of justice we remit the issue back to the Ld.CIT(A) to consider it afres…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(2)(2), Bangalore vs. M/S. Nitesh Infrastructure & Constructions, Bangalore

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

ITA 1039/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri H. Kabila, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), BenglauruFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 148

…- “2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowances made by the Assessing Officer by following the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd Vs CIT, 373 ITR 673 though the facts of the instant case are different. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the entire income of the assessee required to be assessed under the head income from business, without giving any reasons for the same. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law,…

M/S Runwal Constructions, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Central Circle-4(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals are allowed

ITA 1983/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri Rajesh Kumar ()

…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…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Premier Tyres Ltd

ITA/929/2009HC Kerala19 Jul 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

For Appellant: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXFor Respondent: M/S.PREMIER TYRES LTD

…ls Ltd. [(1988) 169 ITR 597)], Rayala Corporation Pvt. Ltd. v Asst. ITA Nos.757/2009 and batch cases 24 Commissioner of Income Tax (2016) 386 ITR 500(SC)], Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd. v Commissioner of Income Tax (2015) 373 ITR 673 (SC)], Commr. of Income Tax, Thiruvananthapuram v M/s Oberon Edifices and Estates (P) Ltd. (2019 KHC 279), CIT & Anr. v Mysore Wine Products Ltd. (2015) 373 ITR 102]. He concludes by arguing that the Tribunal for recording a finding in favour of assessee has taken over all view of the admitted circumstances, statutory scheme to which the…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Premier Tyres Ltd

ITA/758/2009HC Kerala19 Jul 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

For Appellant: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXFor Respondent: M/S.PREMIER TYRES LTD

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Ptl Enterprises Limited

ITA/483/2009HC Kerala19 Jul 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

For Appellant: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXFor Respondent: M/S.PREMIER TYRES LTD

M/S. Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 792/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Before Shri G.S. Pannu & Before Shri G.S. Pannu Before Shri G.S. Pannu & Ms. Suchitra Kamblems. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri H. Siva Prasad Reddy

Section 143(3)Section 23Section 80I

…ble Delhi High Court in 8 ITA-790 to 792/Del/2015 the case of Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd. – [2016] 389 ITR 373 (Delhi) to show that even the ratio of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chennai Properties & Investments Limited – [2015] 373 ITR 673 (SC) has been considered. 9. Having considered the rival stands, in our view, so far as the revised and Additional Grounds relating to the assessment of income by way of notional ALV under Section 22 of the Act is concerned, there is no substantive difference in the dispute raised vis-a-vis the Grounds in the original Memorandum of Appeal. The o…

M/S. Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 791/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Before Shri G.S. Pannu & Before Shri G.S. Pannu Before Shri G.S. Pannu & Ms. Suchitra Kamblems. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri H. Siva Prasad Reddy

Section 143(3)Section 23Section 80I

M/S. Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 790/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Before Shri G.S. Pannu & Before Shri G.S. Pannu Before Shri G.S. Pannu & Ms. Suchitra Kamblems. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri H. Siva Prasad Reddy

Section 143(3)Section 23Section 80I

ACIT 32(1), Mumbai vs. Ashapura Developers, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3607/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri M. Balaganesh, Am आमकय अऩीर सिं./ Ita No. 3607/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वषा / Assessment Year 2013-14) आमकय अऩीर सिं./ Ita No. 3608/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वषा / Assessment Year 2014-15) आमकय अऩीर सिं./ Ita No. 3609/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वषा / Assessment Year 2015-16) The Asst. Commissioner Of Income M/S Ashapura Developers Tax, Circle 32(1), Room No. 702, 101B, Hallmark Business 7Th Floor, C-41 To C-43, Kautilya Plaza, Opp. Gurunanak फनाभ/ Bhavan, G Block Bandra Kurla Hospital, Ant Gyaneshwar Complex Bandra (East), Marg, Bandra East, Vs. Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400 051 (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा सिं./Pan No. Aanfa1971F अऩीराथी की ओय से/ Appellant By : Shri Rajeev Harit, Cit Dr प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Respondent By : Shri Dr. K Shivaramam, Ar सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 01.07.2021 घोषणा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 01.07.2021 आदेश / O R D E R भहावीय ससिंह, उऩाध्मऺ के द्वाया / Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: These Appeals Of Assessee Are Arising Out Of The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)]-44, Mumbai, [In Short Cit(A)], In Ita Nos. 3607-3608/Mum/2019 M/S Ashapura Developers; Ays 13-14 To 15-16 Appeal No. Cit(A)-44/Jcit-32(1)/It-209 & 696A/16-17 & Even Date 22.03.2019. The Assessments Were Framed By The Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range 32(1), Mumbai (In Short Jcit/Ito/ Ao) For The A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Vide Order Dated 11.03.2016, 30.12.2016, 12.12.2017 Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’).

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Harit, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Dr. K Shivaramam, AR

Section 143(3)

…n the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court dated 9th April 2015 in the case of Chennai Properties and Investment Ltd. Vs. CIT, Central- III, Tamil Nadu (2015) reported in 373 ITR 673, as reiterated in the case of M/s Rayala Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (Civil Appeal No. 6437 of 2016 dated 11.08.2016) has held that “if an assessee is having his house property and by way of business he is giving the property on rent and If he is receiving rent from the said property as his business income, the said income, even if in the natu…

Palm Grove Beach Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle-4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 1973/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Us With Delay Of 382 Days & 233 Days Respectively.

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘C‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s. Palm Grove Beach Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Hotels Pvt. Ltd., of Income Tax Construction House, Central Circle-4(1) „B‟, 2nd Floor 19th Floor, Air India 623, Linking Road Building, Nariman Point Khar (W), Mumbai-400052 Mumbai – 400 021 PAN/GIR No.AAACP2735J (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Sanjay Sawant Revenue by Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi Date of Hearing 28/06/2021 Date of Pronouncement 01/07 /2021 आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M): This appeal in IT…

Palm Grove Beach Hotels Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT-CC-4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 4296/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am आमकय अऩीर सिं./ Ita No. 4296/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वषा / Assessment Year 2016-17) Palm Grove Beach Hotels Pvt. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income Tax, Centre 2Nd Construction House-B, Circle-4(1), फनाभ/ Floor, 623, Linking Road, Mumbai-400 021 Khar(West), Vs. Mumbai-400 052 (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा सिं./Pan No. Aaacp2735J अऩीराथी की ओय से/ Appellant By : None प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Respondent By : Ms. Shreekala Pardeshai, Dr सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 17.06.2021 घोषणा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 22.06.2021

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Shreekala pardeshai, DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 22Section 23Section 24

…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: - ITA Ns.4296/Mum/2019 Palm Grove B…

Unique Estates Development Co. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-4(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4598/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleunique Estates Dcit, Cc-4(1) बनाम/ Room No. 1906, 19Th Floor, Development Co. Ltd., Vs. Construction House-B, 2Nd Air India Bldg. Nariman Floor, 623, Linking Road, Point, Mumbai – Khar (West), 400 021. Mumbai-400 052. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacu0699N .. (""यथ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Shah, ARFor Respondent: Usha Gaikwad , CIT-DR

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 23

…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…

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

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 366/HYD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohana Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey, DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

…bserved (M/s Rayala Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, 386 ITR 500) that in the event of leasing out property by a company, such income should be treated as its business income. Similar view has taken in the case of Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. Vs. CIT (373 ITR 673). Since such matters have to be considered by analysing under broader aspects of law by referring to the facts of each case, it is the duty of the AO to have obtained the relevant information, but, the record does not indicate that the AO applied his mind. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that the case law relied upon by the assessee…

Kakinada Sez Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose in above terms

ITA 1251/HYD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Jan 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Sri Manish Shah, AdvFor Respondent: Sri Rohit Mujumdar, D.R

Section 143(3)

…. Vs.CIT held long back that the legislative expression “pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit” confers the widest possible jurisdiction on tribunal so as to decide the issue before us. We also quote Chenncai Properties and Investments Ltd. Vs. CIT (2015) 373 ITR 673 (SC) that if the assessee concerned has let out the property in the course of its regular business, the income derived therefrom ought to be assessed as business income and income from house property in case it does not carry out the renting business activity in regular course. We therefore direct the assessing officer to assesses assessee’s rent…

ITO 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Arihant Estates P. Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 346/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 346/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Respondent: Shri Dharan Gandhi, AR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(47)(v)Section 22Section 23

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 346/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) ITO-2(1)(1) M/s Arihant Estate Pvt. Room No. 543, 5th floor, Ltd. बिधम/ 2nd floor, Kothari House, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Vs. 57, Oak Lane, Fort, Road, Mubmai-400 020 Mumbai स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ PAN No. AADCA6012E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant Shri Brajendra Kumar, DR : by प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri Dharan Gandhi, AR सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 09.12.2020 Date of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख…

M/S Osho Developers, Mumbai vs. ACIT-32, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 2372/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ravish Soodita Nos.2372 & 1860/Mum/2019 (Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16) M/S Osho Developers Acit-32, Mumbai Bldg. No. C-11, 3Rd Floor, Osho, Plot No. 1534A, New Link Road, Vs. Room No. 306, Devki Nagar, Borivali (W), Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400 092 Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051 Pan – Aabfo2984J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Dr. K. Shivram, Senior Advocate & Ms.Neelam Jadhav, A.R Respondent By: Shri Uodal Raj Singh, D.R Date Of Hearing: 06.10.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.11.2020 O R D E R Per Ravish Sood, Jm The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Passed By The Cit(A)-44, Mumbai, Dated 08.02.2019, Which In Turn Arises From The Assessment Orders Passed Under Sec.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short „Act‟), Dated 02.12.2016 & 30.11.2017 For A.Y. 2014-15 & A.Y. 2015-16, Respectively. As The Issues Involved In The Captioned Appeals Are Inextricably Interlinked Or In Fact Interwoven, The Same Are Therefore Being Taken Up & Disposed Off By Way Of A Consolidated Order. We Shall First Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y. 2014-15 Wherein The Impugned Order Has Been Assailed Before Us On The Following Effective Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivram, Senior Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Uodal Raj Singh, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 22

…and any income derived from the stock would be „Income from business‟ and not „Income from property‟. Further, reliance was placed by the ld. A.R on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Chennai Property and Investments Ltd. Vs. CIT (2015) 373 ITR 673 (SC). Taking us through the facts involved in the said case, it was submitted by the ld. A.R that the Hon‟ble Apex Court had observed that as the main object of the assessee company before them was to acquire properties and earn income by letting out the same, the income, there from, was to be taxed as business income and not as income from house…

M/S Druva Woolen Mills Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Central Circle-4(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1980/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Akhtar H. Ansari, D.R

Section 22Section 23

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.1980 & 1981/M/2019 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/s. Dhruva Woollen Dy. Commissioner of Mills Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, 5th Floor, Runwal & Central Circle-4(1), Omkar Esquare, Mumbai - 400020 Vs. Off. Eastern Express Highway, Sion Chunabatti Signal, Sion Mumbai – 400 022 PAN: AAACD3893P (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Rakesh Joshi, A.R. Revenue by : Shri Akhtar H. Ansari, D.R. Date of Hearing : 01.10.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 27…

The Udhna Udyognagar Sahakari Sangh Ltd., Surat vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1(2), Surat

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

ITA 159/SRT/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Oct 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.159/Srt/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Udhna Udhyognagar Sahakari Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Sangh Ltd, Income Tax, Central Road No.10, P. B. No.10, Circle-1(2), Surat Udhna Udhyognagar, Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaat2932K (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rushi Parekh - Ca Respondent By : Shri O P Meena – Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 02/09/2020 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : : 13/10/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee Has Challenged Correctness Of The Order Dated 08.08.2017 Passed By The Learned Cit(A), In The Matter Of Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961 ( For Short “The Act”), For The Assessment Year 2013-14. Grievances Raised By The Assessee, Which Are Interconnected & Will Be Taken Up Together, Are As Follows:- “1. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Taxing The Deemed Rent Of Rs.11,12,720/- While Not Considering The Decision Of Supreme Court In Rayala Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit. 2. That The Cit(A) Erred In Taxing The Unsold Shops Used For The Business Of Assessee Society. 3. That The Cit(A) Erred In Taxing The Deemed Rent On Unsold Shops, Ignoring The Amendment To Section 23(5) W.E.F. Ay. 2018-19. 4. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Amend, Alter, Vary & / Or Withdraw Any Or All The Above Ground Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri Rushi Parekh - CAFor Respondent: Shri O P Meena – Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 23(5)

…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 o…