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 17Supreme Court of India1965#1376 most cited

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'.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2005 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Chugandas and Co. · 55 ITR 17 · rental income classification · Income from House Property · Profits and Gains of Business or Profession · Section 24(a) · sole source of income · letting out properties income tax · head of income · business income vs house property income

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 10(3)Section 132 Section 14 Section 153A Section 153C Section 45 Section 48

Issues it is cited on

section 55(2)section 46 section 49 section 24(a)interest on securities doctrine of merger section 55 annual value transfer of capital asset colourable device profits and gains of business or profession section 48

Judgments citing CIT v. Chugandas and Co.

Asst CIT CC 8(4), Mumbai vs. Phoenix Mills Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 242/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

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

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…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…

Asst CIT CC 8(4), Mumbai vs. Phoenix Mills Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 241/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2016AY 2009-10

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

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

ACIT Cir 12(3), Mumbai vs. Lake View Developers, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed

ITA 4495/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3409/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Lake View Developers Addl. Cit, Range 12(3), बनाम/ 514, Dalamal Towers, Mumbai 211 F.P.J. Marg, Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai-400 021 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafl 0589 R (Assessee) : (Revenue) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4495/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बनाम/ Addl. Cit, Range 12(3), Lake View Developers Mumbai Mumbai-400 021 Vs. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafl 0589 R (Revenue) (Assessee) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4496/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Addl. Cit, Range 12(3), Omega Associates, बनाम/ Mumbai 514, Dalamal Tower, 211-F.P.J. Marg, Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai-400 021 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafl 0589 R (Revenue) : (Assessee) : Shri Chetan Karia Revenue By Assessee By : Shri R. P. Rastogi सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 03.5.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 28.7.2016 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri R. P. Rastogi

Section 143(3)Section 22

…resentative (AR) relied on Karanpura Development Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1962] 44 ITR 362 (SC); CIT vs. Cocanada Radhaswami Bank Ltd. [1965] 57 ITR 306 (SC); Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation vs. CIT [2000] 242 ITR 450 (SC); and CIT vs. Chugandas & Co. [1965] 55 ITR 17 (SC). The ld. Departmental Representative (DR), besides seeking to distinguish the said reliance, relied on East India Housing & Land Development Trust Ltd. vs. CIT [1961] 42 ITR 49 (SC). Assessee’s Appeal (in ITA No. 3409/Mum/2013) 5. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. The primary facts are not in dispute. Income of t…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Mr.Syed Mohammed Shabbir

ITA/567/2015HC Karnataka31 May 2016

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 143(3)Section 260

…cepted by the Department itself, the Tribunal has rightly found that the income cannot be treated as the ‘business income’. It further shows that the Tribunal has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of CIT Vs. Chugandas & Co. reported at (55 ITR 17) (SC), the decision of Karnataka High Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bhoopalam Commercial Complex & Industries (P) Ltd. reported at (2003) 262 ITR 517 as well as the decision of 11 Calcutta High Court in case of Shambhu Investments Pvt. Ltd. reported at 263 ITR 143. 8. As such, the question for giving…

Premier Finance & Trading Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 7(1), Mumbai

ITA 2862/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2016AY 2008-09

For Appellant: S/Shri Sandeep Jhanwar and Hitendra Bhandari –AR.sFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Bare-DR

Section 254(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

…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…

PAN India Network Infravest P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 7(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 4170/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2016AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Seth-ARFor Respondent: Shri Love Kumar-DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 254(1)

DCIT 7(1), Mumbai vs. PAN India Network Infravest P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 3378/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2016AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Seth-ARFor Respondent: Shri Love Kumar-DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 254(1)

DCIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai vs. Gateway Distriparks Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5746/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2010-11 Dcit, M/S Gateway Distriparks Circle-3(1), Ltd. B 1/3, Emca House बनाम/ Room No.607, 6Th Floor, Sahid Bhagatsingh Marg, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Mumbai-400020 Pan No.Aaacg3425C (राज"व /Revenue) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 80I

…bt, there is no question of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. While coming to this conclusion, the Hon’ble High Court relief 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) 16 M/s Gateway Distriparks Ltd. 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) v…

Cifco Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 3(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7875/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.7875/Mum/2010 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year:2006-07) Cifco Ltd, बनाम/ Income Tax Officer 3(1)(1), Bhupen Chambers, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Dalal Street, M K Road, Fort, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400023 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

Section 50

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ “सी” म ुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE S/SHRI B.R.BASKARAN, AM AND AMARJIT SINGH, JM आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.7875/Mum/2010 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year:2006-07) CIFCO LTD, बनाम/ Income Tax Officer 3(1)(1), Bhupen Chambers, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Dalal Street, M K Road, Fort, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400023 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. स्थधमी रेखध सं./जीआइआय सं./PAN. :AAACC1766G अऩीरधथी ओय से / Appellant by Shri Nishit Gandhi प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent by Mrs.Radha Narang सुनवधई की तधयीख / Date of Hearing : 31.12.2015 घोषणध…

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. M/s. Maheshwari Plaza Resorts (P) Ltd

ITTA/281/2011HC Telangana29 Feb 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

The Commissioner of Income Tax I vs. M/S Alloy Nitrides Limited

ITTA/297/2011HC Telangana29 Feb 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. Sri R.Gowsreesham

ITTA/296/2011HC Telangana29 Feb 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Cheminvest Limited vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-VI

The appeal is allowed in the above terms

ITA/749/2014HC Delhi02 Sept 2015

Section 10(33)Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 260A

…ITA No. 749 of 2014 Page 1 of 14 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 16. + ITA 749/2014 CHEMINVEST LIMITED ..... Appellant Through: Mr Ajay Vohra, Senior Advocate with Ms. Kavita Jha and Mr. Vaibhav Kulkarni, Advocate. versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI ..... Respondent Through: Ms Suruchi Aggarwal, Senior Standing Counsel with Ms. Lakshmi Gurung, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU O R D E R % 02.09.2015 1. This is an appeal filed by…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S. Ansal Housing Finance and Leasing Co. Ltd

The Appeals are disposed of in the above terms without any order on costs

ITA-18/1999HC Delhi31 Oct 2012

…em of income, profits and gains of an assessee falls. These sections are mutually exclusive and where an item of income falls specifically under one head it has to be charged under that head and no other." 12. Likewise, in CIT v. Chugandas and Co. [1965] 55 ITR 17 it was held that business income was broken up under different heads under the Income-tax Act 2012:DHC:6622-DB ITA 18/99, 56,57,105, 107,109,114,177/01, 88/02 111, 321,498/03,227,336,529,690/04,212/05 Page 11 only for the purpose of computation of the total income and by that break up the income did not cease to be the income of the busin…

M/s Lavish Apartment (P.) Ltd

ITA/254/2006HC Delhi23 Jul 2012

Section 72(1)

…in accordance with commercial principles. The position was explained first by the Supreme Court in United Commercial Bank Ltd. v. CIT, (1957) 32 ITR 688. This judgment was referred to in a latter judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Chugan Das, (1965) 55 ITR 17 where it was observed as under: - 2012:DHC:4478-DB ITA No.254/2006 Page 9 of 14 “The heads described in section 6 and further elaborated for the purpose of computation of income in sections 7 to 10 and 12, 12A, 12AA and 12B are intended merely to indicate the classes of income : the heads do not exhaustively delimit sources…

The Commissioner of Income Tax -IV vs. M/s. Meghadoot Drillers

ITTA/295/2011HC Telangana22 Nov 2011

CIT vs. Jv Electronics Pvt Ltd

The appeal is disposed of

ITA - 300 / 2002HC Delhi18 Nov 2011

Section 80Section 80H

…ner of the property. In these circumstances, the rental income has to be taxed under the head „income from house property‟. In this connection we may reproduce the observations of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Chugandas & Co. [1965] 55 ITR 17 (SC) wherein it has been observed as under : “It must, therefore, be held that even if an item of income is earned in the course of carrying on a business, it will not necessarily fall within the head "profits and gains of business" within the meaning of section 10 read with section 6(iv). If securities constitute stock-in-trade of the busine…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

ITTA/414/2011HC Telangana17 Nov 2011

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,SANJAY KUMAR

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

ITTA/417/2011HC Telangana17 Nov 2011

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,SANJAY KUMAR

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

ITTA/415/2011HC Telangana17 Nov 2011

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,SANJAY KUMAR