CIT v. Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd.

266 ITR 685High Court2004#3260 most cited

What is CIT v. Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd. authority for?

Rental income earned by letting out a property predominantly as bare letting is assessable under the head 'Income from house property', even if the assessee is the owner.

37

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd · 266 ITR 685 · income from house property · bare letting · rental income · Section 22 · ownership of property · Madras High Court

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 24Section 14ASection 194-ISection 2(13)Section 37(1)Section 119Section 143(1)

Issues it is cited on

house property incomeannual valuesection 22profits and gains of business or professionreasoned ordersection 24section 194section 19salaryincome from other sourcessection 143(1)section 143(2)

Judgments citing CIT v. Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd.

DCIT, CIRCLE -3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. NORD ANGLIA EDUCATION INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue, viz

ITA 314/VIZ/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.

For Appellant: 1.Shri Karnjot Singh KhuranaFor Respondent: Shri Badicala Yadagiri, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

…ble property, the income derived from the said property was liable to be assessed as “Income from house property”. Also, the AO relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of CIT Vs. Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd Vs. (2004) 266 ITR 685 (Madras), wherein it was held that the rental income received by the assessee company on exploiting the property by letting out the same was liable to be assessed under the head “Income from house property”. 6. Accordingly, the AO observed that as the assessee company was exploiting the property as an owner by leasing out the same and realizing…

DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. NORD ANGLIA EDUCATION INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue, viz

ITA 206/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.

For Appellant: 1.Shri Karnjot Singh KhuranaFor Respondent: Shri Badicala Yadagiri, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

…ble property, the income derived from the said property was liable to be assessed as “Income from house property”. Also, the AO relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of CIT Vs. Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd Vs. (2004) 266 ITR 685 (Madras), wherein it was held that the rental income received by the assessee company on exploiting the property by letting out the same was liable to be assessed under the head “Income from house property”. 6. Accordingly, the AO observed that as the assessee company was exploiting the property as an owner by leasing out the same and realizing…

DCIT, RANGE-3, LUCKNOW vs. M/S WELLDONE INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 406/LKW/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh.Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y.2017-18 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S Welldone Infrastructure Range-3, Lucknow Private Limited, Lucknow Pan:Aaacw6354Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. B.P. Yadav, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. Amit Singh Chauhan, Addl (Cit) & Sh. Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 10.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.04.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Lucknow Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Allowing The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Ao Under Section 143(3) On 19.12.2019. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Lucknow Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.2,26,72,571/- Without Appreciate The Fact That The Assessee Is Involved In The Business Of Developing Properties & Selling It & Is Earning Rental Income Which Is Incidental To The "Revenue From Business Operations" Of The Assessee. 2. Ld. Cit(A) Had Erred In Law & On Facts Ignoring The Fact That The Assessee, While Filing Original Return Of Income Had Itself Considered That Rental Are In The Nature Of Revenue From Business Operations.

For Appellant: Sh. B.P. Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Singh Chauhan, Addl (CIT) & Sh
Section 143(3)Section 22Section 250

…le to tax under, “income from house property”. It noted that the ld. 14 A.Y. 2017-17 M/s Welldone Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. DR had heavily relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Chennai Property and Investment Limited 266 ITR 685, in which the Hon’ble High Court had discussed and analyzed various decisions of different High Courts and the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Special Bench held that the legal position which emerged from this analysis was that, if in a given case, the assessee is found to be the owner of the property and rental income is earned by him by letting o…

CHINTALAPATI HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

ITA 1730/HYD/2016[2011]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Jan 2023

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri H. Srinivasulu, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR
Section 24

…ome from business, though derived by way of rent, instead of income from house property. Assessee pleaded that leasing is one of the objectives of the business and placed reliance on the decision reported in Chennai Properties and Investments (P) Ltd. vs. CIT 266 ITR 685 (Mad). Learned Assessing Officer, however, treated it as ‘income from house property’ and recomputed the same. 4. Learned Assessing Officer further observed that the assessee earned interest income and claimed the lending as main business activity. Learned Assessing Officer, however, was of the opinion that since the assessee did not have any pe…

CHINTALAPATI HOLDINGS PVT.LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYD, HYDERABAD

ITA 386/HYD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri H. Srinivasulu, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR
Section 24

…ome from business, though derived by way of rent, instead of income from house property. Assessee pleaded that leasing is one of the objectives of the business and placed reliance on the decision reported in Chennai Properties and Investments (P) Ltd. vs. CIT 266 ITR 685 (Mad). Learned Assessing Officer, however, treated it as ‘income from house property’ and recomputed the same. 4. Learned Assessing Officer further observed that the assessee earned interest income and claimed the lending as main business activity. Learned Assessing Officer, however, was of the opinion that since the assessee did not have any pe…

CHINTALAPATI HOLDINGS PVT.LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYD, HYDERABAD

ITA 385/HYD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri H. Srinivasulu, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR
Section 24

…ome from business, though derived by way of rent, instead of income from house property. Assessee pleaded that leasing is one of the objectives of the business and placed reliance on the decision reported in Chennai Properties and Investments (P) Ltd. vs. CIT 266 ITR 685 (Mad). Learned Assessing Officer, however, treated it as ‘income from house property’ and recomputed the same. 4. Learned Assessing Officer further observed that the assessee earned interest income and claimed the lending as main business activity. Learned Assessing Officer, however, was of the opinion that since the assessee did not have any pe…

SHRI PREMKUMAR MENON,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NCC-17(1),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3070/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3070/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Premkumar Menon, The Asst. Commissioner Of “Menon Eternity Building” Vs. Income Tax, (10Th Floor), No.165, Non Corporate Circle-17(1), St. Mary’S Road, Alwarpet, Chennai. Chennai – 600 018. [Pan: Aiapp-7309-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.09.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.09.2022

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 24

…hension. Herein we are not considering any abstract proposition of law. We are only laying down the law applicable to the facts found.” :- 14 -: 13. The Ld. counsel also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of A.R. Complex Vs. ITO 292 ITR 615 (Mad.), wherein the maintenance charges or charges for certain services was held to be “income from other sources” or “income from business or profession”. The Hon’ble Madras High Court has considered this issue in Para 7, as under: “7. An alternative argument is also advanced that the whole receipt amount should not be assessed under the head…

M/S QUALITY APPAREL EXPORTERS PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 11(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the Ground No

ITA 2352/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 2352 & 2353/Mum/2019 (A.Y: 2012-13 & 2013-14) M/S. Quality Apparel Vs. Ito -Ward -11(1)(1) Exports Pvt Ltd, Room No. 201, Unit No.4, Wicel Bldg, 2Ndfloor,Aayakar Seepz, Midc, Moral, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai Mumbai – 400020 400093 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacq1711F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Mr.T.Shankar.Dr Date Of Hearing 20.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 04.05.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: These Are The Appeals Filed The By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 250 Of The Act.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr.T.Shankar.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…Officer has relied on the decision of Honbie Supreme Court the case of East India Housing and Land Development trust Ld. vs. CIT(1961) 42 ITR 49(SC) and Shambhu Investment (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (263 ITR 143) (SC) and CIT vs. Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. - 266 ITR 685 (Mad. HC) and taxed the rent or rent agreement between two parties should be assessed under the head income from house property u/s. 22 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, 4.3.1The appellant submitted that the Company was incorporated on 7 November 1984 and was engaged in manufacturing and exporting garments. However in mid-1990 due to unfortunate circ…

M/S. VECTRA ADVANCED ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 7(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2025/BANG/2018[2010]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jan 2022

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Nitish Ranjan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sankarganesh K, JCIT (DR)
Section 57

…2007-08, 2012-13 and 2013-14 vide order dated 1/4/2021, wherein, it is held as under:- “9. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd. [(2004) 266 ITR 685 (Mad.)] after referring to the Hon’ble Apex Court judgment in the case of Sultan Brothers Private Limited v. CIT [(1964) 51 ITR 353 (SC)] has observed as under:- “Although it was held by the Constitution Bench in the case of Sultan Brothers (1964) 51 ITR 353 (SC) that whether a particular letting is business has to be decided in the circumstances…

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

…n above, with which we respectfully agree, we do not find any later and recent contrary view of the aforesaid legal position. The earlier decisions rendered by Madras High Court, based on its views in CIT v. Chennai Properties and Investment Pvt. Ltd. [(2004) 266 ITR 685], cannot be now relied upon by the learned counsel for the Revenue, in view of the reversal of the said judgment by the Supreme Court in M/s. Chennai Properties and Investment Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [(2015) 373 ITR 673 (SC)]. The other judgments relied upon by the Revenue are also rendered in different context. I.T.A No.1159/Chny/2019 :- 11 -: 17. We…

M/S VECTRA ADVANCED ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

ITA 127/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Apr 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Shailesh Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Kannan Narayanan, JCIT-DR
Section 144Section 22Section 24Section 57

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “A”, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, JM & Shri B.R.Baskaran, AM ITA No.1325/Bang/2018 : Asst.Year 2005-2006 ITA No.1326/Bang/2018 : Asst.Year 2006-2007 ITA No.1327/Bang/2018 : Asst.Year 2007-2008 ITA No.1328/Bang/2018 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 ITA No.127/Bang/2019 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/s.Vectra Advanced Engineering The Dy.Commissioner of Private Limited Income-tax, Circle 7(1)(2) v. Vectra House No.15, 1st Main Bangalore. Road, 6th Cross, Gandhinagar Bangalore – 560 009. PAN : AABCV1355K. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.Shailesh Kumar, CA Res…

VECTRA ADVANCED ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1328/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Apr 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Shailesh Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Kannan Narayanan, JCIT-DR
Section 144Section 22Section 24Section 57

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “A”, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, JM & Shri B.R.Baskaran, AM ITA No.1325/Bang/2018 : Asst.Year 2005-2006 ITA No.1326/Bang/2018 : Asst.Year 2006-2007 ITA No.1327/Bang/2018 : Asst.Year 2007-2008 ITA No.1328/Bang/2018 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 ITA No.127/Bang/2019 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/s.Vectra Advanced Engineering The Dy.Commissioner of Private Limited Income-tax, Circle 7(1)(2) v. Vectra House No.15, 1st Main Bangalore. Road, 6th Cross, Gandhinagar Bangalore – 560 009. PAN : AABCV1355K. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.Shailesh Kumar, CA Res…

VECTRA ADVANCED ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1327/BANG/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Apr 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Shailesh Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Kannan Narayanan, JCIT-DR
Section 144Section 22Section 24Section 57

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “A”, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, JM & Shri B.R.Baskaran, AM ITA No.1325/Bang/2018 : Asst.Year 2005-2006 ITA No.1326/Bang/2018 : Asst.Year 2006-2007 ITA No.1327/Bang/2018 : Asst.Year 2007-2008 ITA No.1328/Bang/2018 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 ITA No.127/Bang/2019 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/s.Vectra Advanced Engineering The Dy.Commissioner of Private Limited Income-tax, Circle 7(1)(2) v. Vectra House No.15, 1st Main Bangalore. Road, 6th Cross, Gandhinagar Bangalore – 560 009. PAN : AABCV1355K. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.Shailesh Kumar, CA Res…

VECTRA ADVANCED ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1326/BANG/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Apr 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Shailesh Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Kannan Narayanan, JCIT-DR
Section 144Section 22Section 24Section 57

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “A”, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, JM & Shri B.R.Baskaran, AM ITA No.1325/Bang/2018 : Asst.Year 2005-2006 ITA No.1326/Bang/2018 : Asst.Year 2006-2007 ITA No.1327/Bang/2018 : Asst.Year 2007-2008 ITA No.1328/Bang/2018 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 ITA No.127/Bang/2019 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/s.Vectra Advanced Engineering The Dy.Commissioner of Private Limited Income-tax, Circle 7(1)(2) v. Vectra House No.15, 1st Main Bangalore. Road, 6th Cross, Gandhinagar Bangalore – 560 009. PAN : AABCV1355K. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.Shailesh Kumar, CA Res…

M/S VECTRA ADVANCED ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1325/BANG/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Apr 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Shailesh Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Kannan Narayanan, JCIT-DR
Section 144Section 22Section 24Section 57

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “A”, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, JM & Shri B.R.Baskaran, AM ITA No.1325/Bang/2018 : Asst.Year 2005-2006 ITA No.1326/Bang/2018 : Asst.Year 2006-2007 ITA No.1327/Bang/2018 : Asst.Year 2007-2008 ITA No.1328/Bang/2018 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 ITA No.127/Bang/2019 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/s.Vectra Advanced Engineering The Dy.Commissioner of Private Limited Income-tax, Circle 7(1)(2) v. Vectra House No.15, 1st Main Bangalore. Road, 6th Cross, Gandhinagar Bangalore – 560 009. PAN : AABCV1355K. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.Shailesh Kumar, CA Res…

GULMOHAR PARK MALL PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both appeals are allowed as indicated above

ITA 3560/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Aug 2019AY 2011-12
Section 143(3)Section 57Section 57(2)(iii)

…is Estate (1992) 203 ITR 678 (Guj) - CIT vs. New India Industries Ltd (1993) 201 ITR 208 (Bom) - Parekh Traders vs. CIT (1984) 150 ITR 310 (Bom) - Scindia Potteries (P) Ltd vs. CIT (2001) 171 CTR 457 (Del) - CIT vs. Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd (2004) 266 ITR 685 (Mad) - AR Complex vs. ITO (2007) 292 ITR 615 (Mad.) The above referred case laws emphasize the fact that income from letting-out the space and the property which is shown as business assets/stock in trade in the balance sheet and which is given on rent does not change the nature of income. Thus, in view of the above the fact is leading to treat…

GULMOHAR PARK MALL PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both appeals are allowed as indicated above

ITA 3559/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Aug 2019AY 2010-11
Section 143(3)Section 57Section 57(2)(iii)

…is Estate (1992) 203 ITR 678 (Guj) - CIT vs. New India Industries Ltd (1993) 201 ITR 208 (Bom) - Parekh Traders vs. CIT (1984) 150 ITR 310 (Bom) - Scindia Potteries (P) Ltd vs. CIT (2001) 171 CTR 457 (Del) - CIT vs. Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd (2004) 266 ITR 685 (Mad) - AR Complex vs. ITO (2007) 292 ITR 615 (Mad.) The above referred case laws emphasize the fact that income from letting-out the space and the property which is shown as business assets/stock in trade in the balance sheet and which is given on rent does not change the nature of income. Thus, in view of the above the fact is leading to treat…

M/S M.S.LUVISH INFOWAY PROJECTS (P) LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1941/HYD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S M.S. Luvish Infoway Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Projects (P) Ltd., Mumbai Income-Tax, Circle – 16(2), Hyderabad. Pan – Aabcl0755F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Prateek JainFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…o substantiate the same. After considering the submissions of the assessee, AO brought this income under the head ‘income from house property’ relying on various judicial precedents, mainly, in the case of CIT Vs. Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd., [2004] 266 ITR 685 (Mad.) and accordingly confirmed rental income received by the assessee of Rs. 16,46,638/- treating the same as income under the head ‘income from house property’. 3. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). Since none appeared before the CIT(A) on behalf of the assessee, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal.…

DCIT 8(2), MUMBAI vs. M S LUVISH INFOTECH PROJECTS P.LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2745/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Naresh Jain, Ld. ARFor Respondent: R.P.Meena & Saurabh Deshpande, Ld
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

…hat borrowed funds were used to finance the project. However, not convinced, Ld.CIT(A) after placing reliance on various judgments of higher authorities including judgment of Madras High Court rendered in CIT Vs, Chennai Properties & Investments Limited [2004 266 ITR 685] concluded that impugned income was Luvish Infotech Projects Private Limited chargeable as Income from House Property only since the tenant took full charge of the building and was also liable to pay all routine expenditure and the assessee was not carrying out any activity with respect to the building. The addition against interest expenditure w…

LUVISH INFOTECH PROJECTS (P) LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 16(2), HYDERABAD

Appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 308/HYD/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Naresh Jain, Ld. ARFor Respondent: R.P.Meena & Saurabh Deshpande, Ld
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

…hat borrowed funds were used to finance the project. However, not convinced, Ld.CIT(A) after placing reliance on various judgments of higher authorities including judgment of Madras High Court rendered in CIT Vs, Chennai Properties & Investments Limited [2004 266 ITR 685] concluded that impugned income was Luvish Infotech Projects Private Limited chargeable as Income from House Property only since the tenant took full charge of the building and was also liable to pay all routine expenditure and the assessee was not carrying out any activity with respect to the building. The addition against interest expenditure w…

Showing 1–20 of 37 · Page 1 of 2