CIT v. D.R. Puttanna Sons Pvt Ltd.

162 ITR 468High Court1986#4620 most cited

What is CIT v. D.R. Puttanna Sons Pvt Ltd. authority for?

When a lessee constructs a building on leased land and lets it out, the rental income is taxable under the head 'Income from Property' and not as business income, even if the lease is for a long period.

25

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2023.

Also referred to as

D.R. Puttanna Sons Pvt Ltd. · CIT v. D.R. Puttanna Sons Pvt Ltd. · 162 ITR 468 · Karnataka High Court · lessee constructs building · leased land · rental income · income from house property · business income · assessment of rent

Issues it is cited on

recognised provident fundsection 50bsection 43b(f)approved gratuity fundsection 40a(9)section 211wholly and exclusively for businesssection 35dslump salesection 32(1)(ii)domestic companyfull value of consideration

Judgments citing CIT v. D.R. Puttanna Sons Pvt Ltd.

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

…e either u/s 28 of the I.T.Act as profits and gains of business or profession or u/s 56 of the I.T.Act as income from other sources, as the case may be. 9.5 The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of D.R.Puttanna Sons Private Limited v. CIT [(1986) 162 ITR 468 (Kar.)] was considering a case of an assessee who had taken a land for lease for 30 years. The assessee thereafter put up a 9 ITA No.1325/Bang/2017 & Ors. M/s.Vectra Advanced Engineering Pvt.Ltd. . building thereon and the same was let out on rent. The Revenue contended that the assessee being the owner of the property for 30 years, rental income…

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

…e either u/s 28 of the I.T.Act as profits and gains of business or profession or u/s 56 of the I.T.Act as income from other sources, as the case may be. 9.5 The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of D.R.Puttanna Sons Private Limited v. CIT [(1986) 162 ITR 468 (Kar.)] was considering a case of an assessee who had taken a land for lease for 30 years. The assessee thereafter put up a 9 ITA No.1325/Bang/2017 & Ors. M/s.Vectra Advanced Engineering Pvt.Ltd. . building thereon and the same was let out on rent. The Revenue contended that the assessee being the owner of the property for 30 years, rental income…

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

…e either u/s 28 of the I.T.Act as profits and gains of business or profession or u/s 56 of the I.T.Act as income from other sources, as the case may be. 9.5 The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of D.R.Puttanna Sons Private Limited v. CIT [(1986) 162 ITR 468 (Kar.)] was considering a case of an assessee who had taken a land for lease for 30 years. The assessee thereafter put up a 9 ITA No.1325/Bang/2017 & Ors. M/s.Vectra Advanced Engineering Pvt.Ltd. . building thereon and the same was let out on rent. The Revenue contended that the assessee being the owner of the property for 30 years, rental income…

Shivakumar Kheny (HUF), Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-6(3)(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 792/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri R.B. Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139Section 45Section 54

…1882 to further the proposition that the owner of land need not necessarily be the owner of anything constructed-thereon. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Page 5 of 14 Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of D R Puttanna and sons V/s CIT (1986) 162 ITR 468 (Karnataka) in which it was held that when a lessee constructs a building on leased land, the lessee becomes owner of the building and income therefrom will have to be assessed as income from house property. It was also argued that as per the provisions of Section 269 UA(f)(i) read with section 27 (iiib) of the Act, a person acquiring any rights…

M/S Famous Commercial Complex, Udupi vs. ITO, Udupi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1232/BANG/2015[1987-88]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2015AY 1987-88

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan

For Appellant: Smt. Prathibha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P.K. Srihari, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 139Section 147

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A “SMC” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1232 to 1242/Bang/2015 Assessment years : 1987-88 to 1997-98 M/s. Famous Commercial Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Complex, Ward 1, Near City Bus Stand, Udupi. Udupi. PAN: AACFF 0317M APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Smt. Prathibha, Advocate Respondent by : Dr. P.K. Srihari, Addl. CIT(DR) Date of hearing : 23.12.2015 Date of Pronouncement : 30.12.2015 O R D E R These eleven (11) appeals are filed by the assessee against the common order dated 11.03.2015 of the CIT(Appeals), Mangaluru pe…