What is CIT v. Chugandas and Co. authority for?

When a taxpayer's sole source of income is from the letting out of properties, such rental income is to be assessed under the head 'Income from House Property'.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Chugandas and Co.?

83 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Chugandas and Co. (55 ITR 17), spanning 2005 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Chugandas and Co. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 10(3), Section 132, Section 14, Section 153A, Section 153C.

CIT v. Chugandas and Co. (55 ITR 17)

Gopal Das Estates & Housing Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 2576/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 23

…vt. Ltd. in ITA. No. 1684/Mum/2010. It needs to be emphasized that there is no requirement in law for segment-wise segregation of business expenses source-wise. It is also a principle in law as postulated in by the Apex Court in CIT Vs. Chugandas & Co. (1965) 55 ITR 17 (SC) that even if a property is let out in business by an entity, the income from the property will have to be computed in terms of the principles applicable to the computation of income from house property Under Chapter IV-C of the Act. Being so the objection raised by the Assessing Officer that the deduction as claimed u/s 24(a) would be a duplic…

M/S Nandi Steels Limited vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, the findings

ITA/103/2012HC Karnataka23 Feb 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 260Section 260ASection 6

…the Act. It is further submitted that the aforesaid decision was dealt with by the Supreme Court in 'CIT VS. COCANADA RADHASWAMI BANK LTD', 57 ITR 306 (SC). It is also pointed out that Supreme Court dealt with Section 25(3) in CIT VS. CHUGANDAS AND CO.', 55 ITR 17 (SC). It is also urged that the appellant has brought forward the losses in accordance with the decisions of the Supreme Court in CIT VS. CHUGANDAS AND CO.', supra and 'CIT VS. COCANADA RADHASWAMI BANK LTD' supra. It is also pointed out that the order passed by the tribunal cannot be considered as an order passed under Section 254(1) of the…

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

…assessee incorporated with the object of buying and developing land, collection of rents or development of markets, property there on, the income there from was assessable as income from house property. The cases of East India Housing (supra), Chugandas &Co. (55 ITR 17), SG Mercantile Corporation (83 ITR 700) and Sultan Brothers (51 ITR 353) decided by the Hon'ble SC are to this effect. On this issue, a wealth of subsequent decisions by Apex Court are available on the issue as to the fundamental concept that the objective of letting out the property and/or the temporary or permanent letting out & property would n…

Mr. Sunil Goyal, Noida vs. ITO, New Delhi

Appeal is disposed of in accordance with the aforesaid directions

ITA 719/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri R. Santhanam, Adv. and Shri Deepak Ostwal, CA and Shri Rishabh Ostwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 28

…Ltd. (2005) 273ITR 1 (SC) ii) United Commercial Bank Ltd.Vs.CIT (1957) 32 ITR 688(SC) iii) East India Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd. Vs.CIT(1961) 42 ITR 49 (SC) Page 36 of 42 ITA No.- 719/Del/2010 Shri Sunil Goyal. iv) CIT Vs. Chugandas & Co. (1964) 55 ITR 17(SC) v) S G Mercantile Corporation Vs. CIT (1972) 83 ITR 700 (SC) 8. In the present case there is no dispute that the shares were held by the assessee as long term capital asset and hence the same should taxed only under the head ‘capital gain’ as offered by the assessee. However, only because of the higher rate of tax applicable to business income…

DCIT Cen Cir 8(4), Mumbai vs. Phoenix Mills Ltd, Mumbai

In the results, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3991/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ramesh C Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 3991/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 3992/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 3993/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 3994/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) बिधम/ Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Phoenix Mills Ltd. Income Tax, 462, Senapati Bapat Vs. Central Circle-8(4), Marg, Lower Parel, 6Th Floor, Room No. 658, Mumbai-400013. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacp 3325 J (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Awungshi Gimson (CIT-DR)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 23(1)(c)Section 36

…from one head to another would be completely baseless and without any merit. In this regard reliance can be placed on the following judicial pronouncements:-  56ITR 77 - CIT V/s Indian Bank (SC)  242 ITR 250 - Rajasthan Warehousing Corpn Ltd V/s CIT (SC)  55 ITR 17 - CIT V/s Chugandas& Co. (SC)  32 ITR 688 - United Commercial Bank V/s CIT (SC)  82 ITR 452 - CIT V/s Maharashtra Sugar Mills (SC) 24.8. In the above case laws it is ruled that no allocation can be made in case of a consolidated business. It is imperative to note that the department has never disputed the classification of Service Charges as Bus…