CIT v. Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd.

266 ITR 685High Court2004#3217 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 366,005 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.

L G Foundations Private Ltd., Chennai vs. CIT, Chennai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 3320/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Mar 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

For Respondent: Shri. R. Clement Ramesh

…and gains from business/profession’’, since intention of the assessee was to run a hotel and this was only a interim arrangement. As per ld. Authorised Representative, Assessing Officer had erroneously relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High 266 ITR 685 for holding that such income was to be assessed only under the head ‘’income from house property’’. Further, as per ld. Authorised Representative, ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the change of head, despite pointing out that Hon’ble Apex Court had reversed the judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the c…

DCIT 1(2), Mumbai vs. Nautilus Trading & Leasing P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5778/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./5778/Mum/2013,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Dcit – 1(2) M/S. Nautilus Trading & Leasing Limited Room No.535, 5Th Floor 13, Meera Baug, Santacruz (W) Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai-400 054. Mumbai-400 020. Pan:Aaccn 3989 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से /Assessee By: None सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 29/11/2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement:06/01/2017 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" अिधिनयम क" क" धारा क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग" धारा अ"तग" अ"तग"त आदेश अ"तग" आदेश आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य, राजे"" सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार/ Per Rajendra A.M.- अनुसार Challenging The Order Dated 03/05/2013 Of The Cit(A)-7,Mumbai, The Assessing Officer(Ao) Has Filed The Present Appeal.Assessee-Company,Deriving Income From House Property, Filed Its Return Of Income On 18/10/2007, Declaring Loss Of Rs. 1.05 Crores.The Ao Completed The Assessment, Under Section 143 (3) Of The Act, On 4/12/2009, Determining Its Income At Rs.(-) 9.46 Lakhs.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai-DR
Section 143Section 22Section 254(1)

…आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, मुंबई अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई “बी मुंबई बी बी” ” ” ” खंडपीठ बी खंडपीठ खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“B”Bench Mumbai सव"ी राजे"",लेखा सद"य एवं अमरजीत "सह, "याियक सद"य Before S/Sh.Rajendra,Accountant Member and Amarjit Singh,Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./5778/Mum/2013,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" DCIT – 1(2) M/s. Nautilus Trading & Leasing Limited Room No.535, 5th Floor 13, Meera Baug, Santacruz (W) Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai-400 054. Mumbai-400 020. PAN:AACCN 3989 N (अपी…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Khivraj Tech Park Ltd., Chennai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 1183/CHNY/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Aug 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1181, 1182 & 1183/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S Khivraj Tech Park Ltd., Income Tax, V. 1, Sidco Industrial Estate, Corporate Circle – 4(2), Guindy, Chennai - 600 032. Chennai - 600 034. Pan : Aacck 4418 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Jayaram Raipura, CITFor Respondent: Shri Ajith Kumar Choradia, CA
Section 80

…income has to be classified as income from house property is not justified. Referring to the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, the Ld. representative submitted that the judgment of Madras High Court in CIT v. Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd. (266 ITR 685) was reversed by the Apex Court, therefore, the judgment of Apex Court in Chennai 4 I.T.A. Nos.1181 to 1183/Mds/15 Properties and Investments Ltd. would support the case of the assessee. 5. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. It is not in dispute that the assessee estab…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Khivraj Tech Park Ltd., Chennai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 1182/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Aug 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1181, 1182 & 1183/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S Khivraj Tech Park Ltd., Income Tax, V. 1, Sidco Industrial Estate, Corporate Circle – 4(2), Guindy, Chennai - 600 032. Chennai - 600 034. Pan : Aacck 4418 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Jayaram Raipura, CITFor Respondent: Shri Ajith Kumar Choradia, CA
Section 80

…income has to be classified as income from house property is not justified. Referring to the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, the Ld. representative submitted that the judgment of Madras High Court in CIT v. Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd. (266 ITR 685) was reversed by the Apex Court, therefore, the judgment of Apex Court in Chennai 4 I.T.A. Nos.1181 to 1183/Mds/15 Properties and Investments Ltd. would support the case of the assessee. 5. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. It is not in dispute that the assessee estab…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Khivraj Tech Park Ltd., Chennai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 1181/CHNY/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1181, 1182 & 1183/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S Khivraj Tech Park Ltd., Income Tax, V. 1, Sidco Industrial Estate, Corporate Circle – 4(2), Guindy, Chennai - 600 032. Chennai - 600 034. Pan : Aacck 4418 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Jayaram Raipura, CITFor Respondent: Shri Ajith Kumar Choradia, CA
Section 80

…income has to be classified as income from house property is not justified. Referring to the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, the Ld. representative submitted that the judgment of Madras High Court in CIT v. Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd. (266 ITR 685) was reversed by the Apex Court, therefore, the judgment of Apex Court in Chennai 4 I.T.A. Nos.1181 to 1183/Mds/15 Properties and Investments Ltd. would support the case of the assessee. 5. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. It is not in dispute that the assessee estab…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Khivraj Motors P Ltd., Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue and the cross-

ITA 1180/CHNY/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Aug 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1179 & 1180/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 & C.O. No.80/Mds/2015 (In I.T.A. No.1179/Mds/2015) Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S Khivraj Motors Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, V. 623, Anna Salai, Corporate Circle – 4(2), Chennai - 600 006. Chennai - 600 034. Pan : Aaack 2572 Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (Respondent & Cross-Objector)

For Appellant: Shri Jayaram Raipura, CITFor Respondent: Shri Ajith Kumar Choradia, CA
Section 22Section 80

…f appeal filed by the Revenue before this 4 I.T.A. Nos.1179 & 1180/Mds/15 C.O. No.80/Mds/15 Tribunal, the Ld. representative submitted that the Revenue is placing reliance on the judgment of Madras High Court in CIT v. Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. (266 ITR 685). This judgment of Madras High Court was reversed by the Apex Court. Therefore, according to the Ld. representative, the reliance placed by the Revenue in the grounds of appeal in Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. (supra) is misconstrued. Therefore, according to the Ld. representative, the CIT(Appeals) has rightly allowed the claim of the…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Khivraj Motors P Ltd., Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue and the cross-

ITA 1179/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Aug 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1179 & 1180/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 & C.O. No.80/Mds/2015 (In I.T.A. No.1179/Mds/2015) Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S Khivraj Motors Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, V. 623, Anna Salai, Corporate Circle – 4(2), Chennai - 600 006. Chennai - 600 034. Pan : Aaack 2572 Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (Respondent & Cross-Objector)

For Appellant: Shri Jayaram Raipura, CITFor Respondent: Shri Ajith Kumar Choradia, CA
Section 22Section 80

…f appeal filed by the Revenue before this 4 I.T.A. Nos.1179 & 1180/Mds/15 C.O. No.80/Mds/15 Tribunal, the Ld. representative submitted that the Revenue is placing reliance on the judgment of Madras High Court in CIT v. Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. (266 ITR 685). This judgment of Madras High Court was reversed by the Apex Court. Therefore, according to the Ld. representative, the reliance placed by the Revenue in the grounds of appeal in Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. (supra) is misconstrued. Therefore, according to the Ld. representative, the CIT(Appeals) has rightly allowed the claim of the…

Dharmik Exim P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO RG 9(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5815/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Raoi.T.A. No.5815/M/2015 (Assessment Year: 2007-2008) फनाभ/ Dharmik Exim P Ltd., Ito, Rg 9(1)(3), 5Th Floor, Earnest House, 106 Ruby Indl Estate, Vs. Chinchpokhali, Bunder, Rd Ncpa Marg, Nariman Point, Extn, Off Link Road, Malad Mumbai-21. (W), Mumbai – 400 064. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aaacd3656N (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri R.R. Sharma प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Respondent By : Shri Somanath Ukkali, Jcit

For Appellant: Shri R.R. SharmaFor Respondent: Shri Somanath Ukkali, JCIT
Section 24

…on to the Apex Court judgment Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd vs. CIT in CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4494 OF 2004, dated 9.4.2015, which originated from the judgment of the Hon‟ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd (2004) 266 ITR 685 (Mad.), which is relevant for the proposition that assessee, as owner of the building, was only exploiting the property as owner by leasing out the same and realising income by way of rent, and therefore, the rental was assessable under the head „income from house property‟ and not as „business income‟. It is prayed by both the parties that the i…

M/S Kisan Gramin Bhandaran vs. ITO

Appeal is allowed

ITA 604/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri O. P, Kant Assessment Year: 2007-08 Kisan Gramin Bhandaran, Vs. Ito, Asalatpur Jarai, Chandausi, Chandausi (Up) (Up) (Pan: Aaifk1137C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Piyush Kaushik, Adv. Department By: Smt. Rishpal Bedi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18 .04.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 27:06.2016 Order Per I.C. Sudhir:The Assessee Has Questioned First Appellate Order On The Ground That The Learned Cit(Appeals) Was Justified In Upholding Rental Income Received On Letting Out Warehouses Under The Head “Income From House Property” Against The Business Income Shown By The Assessee. 2. Heard & Considered The Arguments Advanced By The Parties In View Of Orders Of The Authorities Below, Material Available On Record & The Decisions Relied Upon. 3. The Facts In Brief Are That The Assessee, A Partnership Firm Had Disclosed Rental Income Of Rs.8,11,046 As Business Income In Its Profit & Loss Account & Net Income Of Rs.2,325 Was Shown As Business Income After

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Kaushik, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Rishpal Bedi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…e issue raised is fully covered in favour of the assessee by the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chennai Properties & Investment Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) – 373 ITR 673 (SC) reversing the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court reported in 266 ITR 685 (Mad.) followed by the Learned CIT(Appeals) for holding the rental income as income from the house properties. The Learned AR pointed out that throughout it has been 4 remained the case of the assessee that it was having no other business than letting out the warehouse. He submitted further that the case of assessee is also fully supported by the…

Kavita Marketing P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 5(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4886/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Joginder Singhm/S. Kavita Marketing Pvt. Ltd., C/O. Shri Prakash Jhunjunwala, Chartered Accountant, 5,Jolly Bhawan No.2, Gr. Flr., 7, New Marine Lines,Churchgate, Mumbai 400 020. Pan:Aaack 2103P ... Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: Shri Prakash JhunjhunwalaFor Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad
Section 143(3)

…acility service charges’ earned by the assessee. In support of the submissions that such charges are not taxable under the head “house property income” but under the head “business income” he has relied upon various decisions namely; (i) A.R. Complex vs. ITO, 292 ITR 615(Mad);(ii) CIT vs. Sarabhai (P) Ltd.,263 ITR 197 (Guj); and, (iii) ACIT vs. Vijay S. Mallya, 52 SOT 0197 (URO). 5. On the other hand, Ld. Departmental Representative has supported the stand of the lower authorities by reiterating the arguments contained in the respective orders, which we have already adverted to in the paras above and are not bei…

M/S Prestige Garden Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. Pr. CIT, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 806/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri. Abraham P. Georgei.T.A No.806/Bang/2015 (Assessment Year : 2010-11) M/S. Prestige Garden Constructions P. Ltd, The Falcon House No.1, Main Guard Cross Road, Off Infantry Road, Bengaluru 560 001 .. Appellant Pan : Aabcp2901E V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle – 5(1)(2), Bengaluru .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Padamchand Khindha, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Sibichen K. Mathew, Cit Heard On : 25.05.2016 Pronounced On : 10.06.2016 O R D E R Per Abraham P. George:

For Appellant: Shri. Padamchand Khindha, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Sibichen K. Mathew, CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…the lease deeds from the assessee. Absence of enquiry, rendered the order of the AO erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. Reliance was placed on the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd [(2015) 266 ITR 685], that of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Keyaram Hotels Ltd v. DCIT [ 373 ITR 494], that of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Maithan International [375 ITR 123] and that of Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT v. Active Traders P. Ltd [214 ITR 583]. 07. We have perused the materials and heard the rival contentions.…

Keyaram Developers and Hotels P Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, I.T.A. No.402/Mds/2013 is dismissed

ITA 2216/CHNY/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.402/Mds/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2003-04

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. P. Radhakrishnan, JCIT

…ITR 118 confirmed the order of this Tribunal by holding that the entire rental income is income from house property. The Madras High Court placed its reliance on the earlier Division Bench judgment in CIT v. Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd. (2004) 266 ITR 685. For the assessment years 2004-05, 2005-06, 2007-08 and 2008-09, the Ltd. v. DCIT (2015) 373 ITR 494 and by placing reliance on Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd. (supra) and on the assessee's own case for assessment year 2001-02 (supra), the High Court confirmed the order of this Tribunal by holding that the entire rental income has to…

Keyaram Developers and Hotels P Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, I.T.A. No.402/Mds/2013 is dismissed

ITA 2215/CHNY/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.402/Mds/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2003-04

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. P. Radhakrishnan, JCIT

…ITR 118 confirmed the order of this Tribunal by holding that the entire rental income is income from house property. The Madras High Court placed its reliance on the earlier Division Bench judgment in CIT v. Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd. (2004) 266 ITR 685. For the assessment years 2004-05, 2005-06, 2007-08 and 2008-09, the Ltd. v. DCIT (2015) 373 ITR 494 and by placing reliance on Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd. (supra) and on the assessee's own case for assessment year 2001-02 (supra), the High Court confirmed the order of this Tribunal by holding that the entire rental income has to…

Keyaram Hotels Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, I.T.A. No.402/Mds/2013 is dismissed

ITA 1095/CHNY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jun 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.402/Mds/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2003-04

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. P. Radhakrishnan, JCIT

…ITR 118 confirmed the order of this Tribunal by holding that the entire rental income is income from house property. The Madras High Court placed its reliance on the earlier Division Bench judgment in CIT v. Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd. (2004) 266 ITR 685. For the assessment years 2004-05, 2005-06, 2007-08 and 2008-09, the Ltd. v. DCIT (2015) 373 ITR 494 and by placing reliance on Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd. (supra) and on the assessee's own case for assessment year 2001-02 (supra), the High Court confirmed the order of this Tribunal by holding that the entire rental income has to…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Keyaram Hotel Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, I.T.A. No.402/Mds/2013 is dismissed

ITA 402/CHNY/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jun 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.402/Mds/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2003-04

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. P. Radhakrishnan, JCIT

…ITR 118 confirmed the order of this Tribunal by holding that the entire rental income is income from house property. The Madras High Court placed its reliance on the earlier Division Bench judgment in CIT v. Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd. (2004) 266 ITR 685. For the assessment years 2004-05, 2005-06, 2007-08 and 2008-09, the Ltd. v. DCIT (2015) 373 ITR 494 and by placing reliance on Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd. (supra) and on the assessee's own case for assessment year 2001-02 (supra), the High Court confirmed the order of this Tribunal by holding that the entire rental income has to…

ITO 8(1)3, Mumbai vs. Endovascular Therapeutics India P. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 41/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2016AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah (AR)For Respondent: Shri B.S.N. Raju-(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

…d that the income received by the assessee from letting out of property was to be treated as ‘income from house property’, that same could not be treated as ‘business income’.Relying upon the decisions of Shambhu Investment (266 ITR 143) and Chennai Property (266 ITR 685), the FAA upheld the order of the AO. He further held that there was a distinction between a lull in 41/11Endovascular business and going out of business, that the assessee had every intention to carry on its business, that no prudent person would like to keep its stock which was so well sold in the immediately previous year, that it had maintai…

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi IV vs. D.S.Promoters & Developers P. Ltd

The Appeal is dismissed but with no orders as to costs

ITA/654/2008HC Delhi01 May 2009

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAMAJIT SEN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

Section 22Section 260ASection 28

…king a property on lease, setting up a market thereon and letting out shops and stalls in the market can constitute business activity. Our attention has been drawn to CIT –vs- Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd., ITA No.654/2008 Page 6 of 9 [2004] 266 ITR 685 where the Division Bench of the Madras High Court had come to the conclusion that the assessee, as owner of the building, intended only to realize rent by leasing out the property and consequently the income could not have been assessed to tax as profits and gains from business. This was also the verdict in CIT –vs- Superfine Cables P. Ltd.,…