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

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Kenmore Vikas India (P) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2673/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleasstt. Year 2012-13

For Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR

Section 14Section 24

…ease to be business assets and the transaction will only be exploitation of property by an owner, but not exploitation of business assets. In the latest decision the Apex Court, approved the Madras High Court decision in Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. (373 ITR 673) that in all the cases involving commercial and residential buildings owned by an assessee, the rental income realized is assessable under the head "income from house property". The only exceptions are cases where the letting of building is inseparable from letting of 8 DCIT vs. Kenmore Vikas India (P) Ltd. machines of plant & furniture. Since…

Hind Musafir Agency Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT-2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, this ground of appeal

ITA 247/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarhind Musafir Agency Ltd. Acit- 2(1)(2) 39Th Floor, Sunshine Tower, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Vs. Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar Road, (West), Mumbai-400013. Mumbai-400020. Bominfo@Hmatravel.Com Pan: Aaach1250Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Kirit Kamdar (Ar) Respondent By : Shri R. Bhoopathi (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.09.2020 Orderunder Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh; 1. This Appeal By Assessing Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned

For Appellant: Shri Kirit Kamdar (AR)For Respondent: Shri R. Bhoopathi (DR)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 254(1)Section 32

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hind Musafir Agency Ltd. ACIT- 2(1)(2) 39th Floor, Sunshine Tower, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Vs. Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar Road, (West), Mumbai-400013. Mumbai-400020. bominfo@hmatravel.com PAN: AAACH1250Q Appellant Respondent Appellant by : Shri Kirit Kamdar (AR) Respondent by : Shri R. Bhoopathi (DR) Date of Hearing : 15.09.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 15.09.2020 ORDERUNDER SECTION 254(1)OF INCOME TAX ACT PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. This appeal by assessing is directed…

Rak Construction Project Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 3 (3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 7584/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Smt. Jyothilakshmi Nayak

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D”BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBERAND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA no.7584/Mum./2019 (Assessment Year : 2010–11) Rak Construction Project Co. Pvt. Ltd. 113–A, Mittal Tower, Nariman Point ……………. Appellant Mumbai 400 021 PAN – AACCK8147P v/s Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–3(3)(1), Mumbai Assessee by : Shri Bhupendra Shah Revenue by : Smt. Jyothilakshmi Nayak Date of Hearing – 26.02.2020 Date of Order – 13.07.2020 O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY. J.M. The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the order…

M/S. G G Associates, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 7, Pune

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1946/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Jul 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. S. Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1946/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. G. G. Associates, San Mahu Complex 5, Bund Garden Road, Opp. Poona Club, Pune-411001. Pan: Aaffg5234G ……….. आवेदक/Applicant बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Circle-7, Pune. ..……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Krishana Gujarathi Revenue By : Shri Maruti W. Maddewad सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 03.07.2020 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2020 आदेश / Order Per Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm: This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Emanates From The Order Of The Ld. Cit(Appeal), Pune-5 Dated 15.06.2017 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 As Per The Following Grounds Of Appeal On Record: “1) On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Honourable Cit (Appeal) - 5, Pune Erred In Confirming The Addition Made By The Learned Ao Of Rs. 1,26,000/- To The Income Of The Appellant Under The Head “Income From House Property” Being The Annual Letting Value Of The Unsold Units Lying As Stock In Trade Of The Appellant Without Appreciating The Fact That The Appellant Is Engaged In The Business Of Real Estate Development & The Unsold Flats Are Held As Stock In Trade & Not As Investment. The Appellant Hereby Prays That The Said Addition Of Rs.1,26,000/- May Please Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Shri Krishana GujarathiFor Respondent: Shri Maruti W. Maddewad

Section 23Section 23(4)

…ade, income there from will be chargeable under the head `Income from house property’ and not as `Business income’. It is pertinent to note that such a legal position has undergone some transformation. In Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd. Vs. CIT (2015) 373 ITR 673 (SC), the assessee whose business was to acquire properties, let out certain properties and the rental income as received therefrom was declared as business income. The AO held such income to be chargeable to tax under the head “Income from house property”. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the deciding factor for determining as to whether the…

The ACIT, Cochin vs. M/S.Ptl Enterprises Ltd, Cochin

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

ITA 84/COCH/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Jul 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Mritunjaya Sharma, CIT-DRFor Respondent: S/Sri.Joseph Marcose, Sr.Advocate &

Section 56(2)(ii)

…ness as per Memorandum of Association such income should be assessed as business income and not house property. In arriving at the above conclusion, the Hon’ble Apex Court followed the judgment dated 9.4.2015 of Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd. vs. CIT 373 ITR 673 (SC) wherein it was held that if an assessee is having a house property and by way of business it is giving property on rent and if it is receiving rent from the said property as its business income, the said income, even if in the nature of rent, should be treated as “Business Income” because the assessee is having a business of renting his prop…

Sankalpan Infrastructure Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-15(3)(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, and appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed

ITA 6010/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6010/Mum/2017 & 2400/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13 &2013-14)

For Appellant: ShriSubodhFor Respondent: Shri V. Vinod Kumar

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 41

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6010/Mum/2017 & 2400/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13 &2013-14) ITO 15(3)(3), Sankalpan Infrastructure R. No. 480, 4th floor, Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ 304, Sentinel, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Hiranandani Business Road, Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Park, Powai, Mumbai- 400 076 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN No. AAICS6802P (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant by : ShriSubodh Ratnaparkhi, AR प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri V. Vinod Kumar, DR सुनवाईकीतारीख…

ACIT, Circle- 2(2), New Delhi vs. Anant Raj Ltd., New Delhi

In the result assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 5677/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 May 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Goel, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 4Section 50C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 5169/DEL/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s Anant Raj Limited, v. ACIT, E-2, ARA Centre, Range-2, Jhandewalan Extension, Circle-2(2), New Delhi-110055 New Delhi TAN/PAN: AABCA3927B (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No. 5677/DEL/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 ACIT, v. M/s Anant Raj Limited, Range-2, E-2, ARA Centre, Circle-2(2), Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi New Delhi-110055 TAN/PAN: AABCA3927B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri V.K. Bindal, CA, Ms. Swee…

Anant Raj Ltd, New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, Range-2, Circle-2(2), New Delhi

In the result assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 5169/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 May 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Goel, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 4Section 50C

M/S. Asset Investment Services, Thane vs. ITO-26(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-

ITA 332/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2020AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Viraj Mehta (AR)For Respondent: Shri Michael Jerald (DR)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234A

…d or has started but ceased with no intention to be resumed, the assets also will cease to be business assets and the transaction will only be exploitation of property by an owner thereof. 10. In the case of Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. V. CIT (2015) 373 ITR 673, Hon‟ble Supreme Court held as under:- “Fact:- The assessee-company was incorporated with main objective, as stated in the Memorandum of Association.) to acquire the properties in the city and to let out those properties. Held:- The Memorandum of Association of the appellant-company which is placed on record mentions main objects as well as inci…

M/S Mlc Properties LLP, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 758/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Mar 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Assessment Year : 2015 – 16 M/S Mlc Properties Llp, Tower – D, The Millennia, Vs. Dcit, Circle – 1 (2) (1), Murphy Road, Ulsoor, Bengaluru Bengaluru - 560008 Pan : Bhkpm3338N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shree V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. R. Premi, Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.03.2020

For Appellant: Shree V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, JCIT DR

…that the business objective of the ITA Nos.758/(B)/2019 Page 2 of 5 partnership firm is to rent or lease out buildings. The AO followed the judgment of Hon’ble apex court rendered in the case of Chennai Properties and Investment Limited vs. CIT as reported in 373 ITR 673. He submitted that the AO and CIT (A) has totally disregarded the activities of the assessee firm and the nature of services rendered by the assessee to the lessees. In this regard, he submitted that copies of various lease deeds is available in the paper book. He drawn our attention to lease deed dated 01.03.2010 between the assessee firm and M/…

Wingflow Construction Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3157/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Kuldip Singhdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 3157/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Wingflow Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, G-2/43A, Middle Circle, Ward-27(3), Connaught Place, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacw0016D Assessee By : Sh. R. K. Mehra, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Saras Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.01.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.02.2020

For Appellant: Sh. R. K. Mehra, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Saras Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 234B

…n as well as controversy of the instant case with M/s. Rayala Corporation Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT in Civil Appeal No.6437 of 2016 judgment dated 11.08.2016 passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court while referring to Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd. vs. CIT – (2015) 373 ITR 673 (SC), the same is identical and similar to the case decided by the Apex Court. The relevant crux is reproduced herein below:- “11. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the assessee squarely covers the facts of the case involved in the appeals. The business of the company is to lease its property and to earn rent and ther…

Falcon Vincon Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Pr.CIT-3, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1159/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Falcon Vincon Private Limited Vs. Pr. Cit-3, Kolkata 102, Tower No.12, Shriram Sameeksha, New Gangamma Gudi Police Station Road, Naidu Layout, Bengaluru "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcf3203C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tibrewal, FCAFor Respondent: Dr. P. K. Srihari, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(3)

…clear from the above that letting out of the properties was the business of the assessee. In this context, reference may be made to a later decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 373 ITR 673 (SC). In this case, Hon'ble Supreme Court had held the main object of the company was to let out properties as well as make advances upon the security of lands and buildings or other properties or any interest therein. In other words, it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that letting out the properties was the business of the assessee and the ass…

M/S. Asset Investment Services, Thane vs. ACIT-26(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 331/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma

Section 143(3)Section 22

…or has started but ceased with no intention to be resumed, the assets also will cease to be business assets and the transaction will only be exploitation of property by an owner thereof. 10. In the case of Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. V. CIT (2015) 373 ITR 673, Hon‟ble Supreme Court held as under:- “Fact:- The assessee-company was incorporated with main objective, as stated in the Memorandum of Association.) to acquire the properties in the city and to let out those properties. Held:- The Memorandum of Association of the appellant-company which is placed on record mentions main objects as well as incid…

M/S. Parmar Properties Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 4, Pune

Appeal are allowed

ITA 2262/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos. 2261 & 2262/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Jatin C. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Garg

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 24

…ade, income there from will be chargeable under the head `Income from house property‟ and not as `Business income‟. It is pertinent to note that such a legal position has undergone some transformation. In Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd. Vs. CIT (2015) 373 ITR 673 (SC), the assessee whose business was to acquire properties, let out certain properties and the rental income as received therefrom was declared as business income. The AO held such income to be chargeable to tax under the head “Income from house property”. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the deciding factor for determining as to whether the…

M/S. Parmar Properties Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 4, Pune

Appeal are allowed

ITA 2261/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos. 2261 & 2262/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Jatin C. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Garg

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 24

M/S.Kiran Promoters & Developers, Mumbai vs. Dy.CIT Central Circle 5(4), Mumbai

In the result, ground 1 of the appeal is allowed

ITA 5321/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Kiran Promoters & Vs Dy.Cit, Cent.Cir.5(4), Room No. 1927, 19Th Floor, Developers, C/O Thar & Co 203, Capri Bldg, Air India Building, Nariman Opposite Hdil Towers, Point, Mumbai-400021 Anant Kanekar Marg, Bandra (E) Mumbai- 400 051 Pan : Aaefk1475F Appellant Respondednt

Section 143Section 23Section 234BSection 24

…structure Vs DCIT (ITA 5986/Mum/2017),  Mayank Chemiplast Pvt Ltd (ITA No. 4072/Mum/2011),  C.R. Developers Pvt Ltd Vs JCIT (ITA No. 4277/Mum/2012),  Runawal construction Vs ACIT (ITA No. 5408/Mum/2016) and  Chennai Property & Investment Ltd Vs CIT (2015) 373 ITR 673(SC). 7. We have considered the submission of ld. DR and perused the material available on record. There is no dispute that assessee is a builder and developer. During the assessment, the AO treated the Annual Letting Value (ALV) of unsold unit and on the basis of ALV so computed and granting 30% deduction under section 24, brought the income of…

M/S. Ashford Corporation, Mumbai vs. The Addl. CIT RG 12(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6570/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Blem/S. Ashford Corporation V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax 16, Vasani Chambers Range – 17(2) Mezanine Floor {Previously Range – 12(2)} 47, New Marine Lines Mumbai Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aagfa9350D (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : None

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S. Michael Jerald

Section 143(3)Section 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…

Dynacon Equipments Pvt Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 1(4), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee in ITA

ITA 2263/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Duvvuru R.L.Reddy

For Appellant: Mr.Srinivasa Rao Vana, JCITFor Respondent: 21.11.2019

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ad ‘income from house property’ or under the head ‘Profits and Gains from Business of Profession’ , in this decision the Hon’ble Supreme Court has distinguished its own decisions in the case of Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. v. CIT reported in (2015) 373 ITR 673(SC) and Rayala Corporation Private Limited v. ACIT reported in (2016) 386 ITR 500 (SC) to explain the parameters to be seen while bringing to tax rental income under the head ‘Income from House Property’ or under the head ‘Profit and Gains from Business or Profession’. It is observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court that facts of each case are to be…

Dynacon Equipments Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 1(4), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee in ITA

ITA 2172/CHNY/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Duvvuru R.L.Reddy

For Appellant: Mr.Srinivasa Rao Vana, JCITFor Respondent: 21.11.2019

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

DCIT, Cir-12(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Bengal Ambuja Housing Development Ltd., Kolkata

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 1298/KOL/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2019AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 22Section 27

…आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “C” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “C” KOLKATA Before Shri S.S.Godara, Judicial Member and Dr. A.L. Saini, Accountant Member Assessment Year :2012-13 DCIT, Circle-12(1), V/s. M/s Bengal Ambuja 7th Floor, Aayakar Housing Development Ltd. Bhawan, P-7, “Vishwakarma”, 86C Chorwinghee Square, Topsia Road (South), Kolkata-69 Kolata-700 046 [PAN No.AABCB 0977 F] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT-SR-DR अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Dilip S Damle, FCA ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 04-11-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing 20-11…