CIT v. Chugandas and Co.

Ambuja Cement India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2600/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2005-06)

…y the assessee and Sources". Hence brought forward assessable in that assessment year. business loss cannot be set- off against income from other Reliance is placed on the following decisions:- sources. [AO's order Pg. No. 16- CIT -vs.- Chugandas & Co. (1965) 55 ITR 17 (SC) 17] Business income is broken up under different heads only for the purpose of computation of Order of CIT (A) - Interest earned total income. The breaking up of income does out of surplus funds invested in not cease the income to be of business nature fixed deposits is taxable under since the different heads of income are only the head Income…

Suyash Holding & Estate Developers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 8(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

…es which has been let out for earning rent income. It is a well settled law that the income derived from the property has to be taxed under, :the head Income from House Property. The Hon‟ble Apex Court has held in the case of CIT vs Chugandas & Company [1965] 55 ITR 17, :(SG| that income received from the building will be shown under the head income from house property and not under the head profit and gains of the business, even if an assessee carries on business of purchasing and selling building. 5.7. Further, where the assessee is the owner of building on leasehold land, rental income is income from house pro…

DCIT-2(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am The Dy. Commissioner Of Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Income Tax, Circle 2(3)(2), 27 Bkc, G Block, Bandra Mumbai R. No. 552, 5Th Floor, Kurla Complex, Bandra Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, (East), Mumbai-400 023 Mumbai-400 020 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aaack4409J

…t, there is no question of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. While coming to this conclusion, the Hon’ble High Court relied upon following decisions:- i. Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT [2009] 317 ITR (AT) 86 (Delhi) [SB] (para 15) ii. CIT v. Chugandas and Co. [1964] 55 ITR 17 (SC) (para 14) iii. CIT v. Cocanada Radhaswami Bank Ltd. [1965] 57 ITR 306 (SC) (para 14) iv. CIT v. Corrtech Energy (P.) Ltd. [2015] 372 ITR 97 (Guj) (para 15) v. CIT v.Holcim India (P.) Ltd.(I.T.A.No.486 of 2014 decided on 5- 9-2014) (para 15) vi. CIT v. Hero Cycles Ltd. [2010] 323 ITR 518 (P&H) (para 15) vii. CIT v. Lakhani Marketing Incl. [2015…

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 3(2), Mumbai

The appeals of the AO are dismissed

…ubt, there is no question of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. While coming to this conclusion, the Hon’ble High Court relied upon following decisions:- i. Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT [2009] 317 ITR (AT) 86 (Delhi) [SB] (para 15) ii. CIT v. Chugandas and Co. [1964] 55 ITR 17 (SC) (para 14) iii. CIT v. Cocanada Radhaswami Bank Ltd. [1965] 57 ITR 306 (SC) (para 14) iv. CIT v. Corrtech Energy (P.) Ltd. [2015] 372 ITR 97 (Guj) (para 15) v. CIT v.Holcim India (P.) Ltd.(I.T.A.No.486 of 2014 decided on 5- 9-2014) (para 15) vi. CIT v. Hero Cycles Ltd. [2010] 323 ITR 518 (P&H) (para 15) vii. CIT v. Lakhani Marketing Incl. [2015…

M.K. Creations, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 14(1)(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Years: 2010-11 M/S M.K. Creations, Income Tax Officer C/O- Shankarlal Jain & Ward-14(1)(3), बनाम/ Associates, Earnest House, Vs. 12, Engineer Building, Nariman Point, 265, Princess Street, Mumbai-400021 Mumbai-400002 ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pa No.:-Aaafm2004J "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Shankarlal Jain Shri Suman Kumar-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 06/04/2017 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 07/04/2017 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order:

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, ‘बी’, मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “B”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी रिमत कोचर, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Ramit Kochar, Accountant Member Assessment Years: 2010-11 M/s M.K. Creations, Income Tax Officer C/o- Shankarlal Jain & Ward-14(1)(3), बनाम/ Associates, Earnest House, Vs. 12, Engineer Building, Nariman Point, 265, Princess Street, Mumbai-400021 Mumbai-400002 ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) PA No.:-AAAFM2004J "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Shri Shankarlal Jain Shri Suman Kumar-…

Priya Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD), Cir 2(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is disposed off in terms indicated hereinabove and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2010-11 Priya Ltd. Dcit(Osd), Circle-2(3), 209-210, Kimatraj Building बनाम/ R. No. 552, 5Th Floor, 02 Floor, 77/79 Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400002 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaacp2210Q Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit(Osd), Priya Ltd. 209-210, Kimatraj Building Circle-2(3), बनाम/ 02 Floor, 77/79 R. No. 552, 5Th Floor, Vs. M.K. Road, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400002 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaacp2210Q

…cision of this Court in Eicher Goodearth Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax [2015] 60 taxmann.com 268 (Delhi) which answered the question in the affirmative. Mr. Vohra has also placed reliance on decisions of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Chugandas & Co. [1964] 55 ITR 17 (SC) and CIT v. Cocanada Radhaswami Bank Ltd. [1965] 57 ITR 306 (SC) which hold that where shares were held as business investment, the dividend income though assessable to tax under the head ‘income from other sources,’ would retain its character as business income for all intents and purposes. In the latter decision it was specifically held that…

The Phoenix Mills Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

…Reliance was placed on the following judicial pronouncements in support of the contentions that no allocation can be made in case of a consolidated business:-  56 ITR 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 vs/ Maharashtra Sugar Mills (SC) 60. As per learned A.R under the provisions of section 37 of the Act, the entire expenditure be held to be allowable as a deduction since the assessee had even offered service charges to tax under the head 'Income from…

The Phoenix Mills Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

…Reliance was placed on the following judicial pronouncements in support of the contentions that no allocation can be made in case of a consolidated business:-  56 ITR 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 vs/ Maharashtra Sugar Mills (SC) 60. As per learned A.R under the provisions of section 37 of the Act, the entire expenditure be held to be allowable as a deduction since the assessee had even offered service charges to tax under the head 'Income from…

The Phoenix Mills Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

…Reliance was placed on the following judicial pronouncements in support of the contentions that no allocation can be made in case of a consolidated business:-  56 ITR 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 vs/ Maharashtra Sugar Mills (SC) 60. As per learned A.R under the provisions of section 37 of the Act, the entire expenditure be held to be allowable as a deduction since the assessee had even offered service charges to tax under the head 'Income from…

The Phoenix Mills Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

…Reliance was placed on the following judicial pronouncements in support of the contentions that no allocation can be made in case of a consolidated business:-  56 ITR 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 vs/ Maharashtra Sugar Mills (SC) 60. As per learned A.R under the provisions of section 37 of the Act, the entire expenditure be held to be allowable as a deduction since the assessee had even offered service charges to tax under the head 'Income from…

The Phoenix Mills Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

…Reliance was placed on the following judicial pronouncements in support of the contentions that no allocation can be made in case of a consolidated business:-  56 ITR 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 vs/ Maharashtra Sugar Mills (SC) 60. As per learned A.R under the provisions of section 37 of the Act, the entire expenditure be held to be allowable as a deduction since the assessee had even offered service charges to tax under the head 'Income from…

The Phoenix Mills Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

…Reliance was placed on the following judicial pronouncements in support of the contentions that no allocation can be made in case of a consolidated business:-  56 ITR 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 vs/ Maharashtra Sugar Mills (SC) 60. As per learned A.R under the provisions of section 37 of the Act, the entire expenditure be held to be allowable as a deduction since the assessee had even offered service charges to tax under the head 'Income from…

The Phoenix Mills Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

…Reliance was placed on the following judicial pronouncements in support of the contentions that no allocation can be made in case of a consolidated business:-  56 ITR 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 vs/ Maharashtra Sugar Mills (SC) 60. As per learned A.R under the provisions of section 37 of the Act, the entire expenditure be held to be allowable as a deduction since the assessee had even offered service charges to tax under the head 'Income from…