CIT v. Dr. B. Venkata Rao

243 ITR 81Supreme Court of India2000#2927 most cited

What is CIT v. Dr. B. Venkata Rao authority for?

A building used as a nursing home qualifies as 'plant' under the Income-tax Act if it functions as a tool of the trade with which the business is carried on, as determined by the functional test.

40

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Dr. B. Venkata Rao · plant · nursing home · functional test · depreciation · Income Tax Act · business income · tool of trade

Sections most often in play

Section 14ASection 2(24)Section 28Section 32(1)(ii)Section 35DDASection 37(1)Section 5

Issues it is cited on

section 14a(3)section 10(5)section 43(3)section 14a(1)section 42section 115jb(2)strategic investmentsection 80ia(4)section 34section 80iadisallowance under section 14asection 115j

Judgments citing CIT v. Dr. B. Venkata Rao

Singareni Colleries Company Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Khammam

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 are dismissed

ITA 884/HYD/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 May 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Anil KumarFor Respondent: Smt. Anjala Sahu &
Section 143(3)Section 35ESection 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH ‘A', HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sl. ITA No. AY Appellant Respondent No. 1 801, 802, 2006-07 , Asst./Dy. M/s Singareni to 803/ 2009-10 & Commissioner Colleries 4 H/2014 and 2010-11 of Income-tax, Company Ltd., 519/H/2016 and 2004- Circle – 1, Khammam 05 Khammam 5 879, 880, 2005-06, M/s Singareni Asst./Dy. to 882, 884, 2006-07, Colleries Commissioner of 11 886 & 2007-08, Company Ltd., Income-tax, 887/H/2014 2007-08, Khammam Circle – 1, and 2008-09, Khammam 561/H/2016 2009-10, 2010-11…

City & Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-15, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1278/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2020AY 2015-16
Section 10Section 10CSection 143(3)Section 2(31)Section 263Section 289(1)Section 4Section 5

…, suitable directions will be given in respect of these aspects also. 12. At last on 11, the assessee has cites the Judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of India in the case of Malabar Industrial Company Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 243 ITR 81 and CIT vs Max India Ltd. 295 ITR 282. The judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court are full respect to the judgements, it is submitted that in the case of the assessee only one view is possible and that is the acts of the assessee company are not the acts of the State and, therefore, the income of the company must be subject to the provisions of t…

Dena Bank, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assesse is allowed

ITA 2159/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sooddena Bank Vs. Pcit-2 Room No.344, 3Rd Floor Accounts Department Dena Bank Building Aaykar Bhawan 2Nd Floor M.K.Road 17/B, Horniman Circle Mumbai-400 020 Fort, Mumbai-400 023 Pan/Gir No.Aaacd4249B Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

…tigation in the context of the amended section applicable for the first time this year and merely following the earlier year assessment order by the AO during the scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) is tantamount to non-application of mind by the AO [Malabar Inds. 243 ITR 81 (SC)], The AO is not only an adjudicator but also an investigator. He is supposed to be aware of the change in statute and apply it in the background of facts and circumstances of the case. Reliance is placed on following case laws. 25 Dena Bank > {1968) 67 ITR 84 /SCJ Rampyari Devi Baraogi v/s CIT. acceptance without enquiry & evidence. ClTs di…

City and Industrial Development Corportaion of Maharashtra Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT - 15, Mumbai

ITA 2840/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

For Appellant: Shri S. E. Dastur, SrFor Respondent: Shri Awangshi Gimson, DR
Section 10Section 113Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 263Section 40

…7 which is that the income of the assessee after omission of section 10(20A) is taxable w.e.f. A.Y. 2003-04. 8. Further, Pr. CIT rejected the citation of the various decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court i.e. in the case of Malabar Industrial Company Ltd vs. CIT 243 ITR 81 and CIT vs Max India Ltd. 295 ITR 282. Further, he observed that only one view is possible and that is the acts of the assessee company are not the acts of the State and therefore, the income of the assessee 8 I.T.A. No. 2840/Mum/2019 M/s City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. company like any other company must be subjec…

Degustibus Hospitality P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 526/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Degustibus Hospitality Dcit-5(1), Aayakarbhavan, M.K. Pvt. Ltd., 8Th Floor, Road, Mumbai-400020. Vs. Baktawar Building, Near Sakharbhavan, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aabcd3674P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Sunil A. Desai, ARFor Respondent: Mr. D.G. Pansari, DR
Section 143(3)

…disallowance of Rs.45,66,996/- made by the AO. 5. Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee files a copy of the decision in CIT v. Konadia Cold Storage (1975) 100 ITR 155 (All), CIT v. Taj Mahal Hotel (1971) 82 ITR 44 (SC), CIT v. Dr. B. Venkata Rao (2000) 243 ITR 81 (SC), CIT v. Navodaya (2004) 271 ITR 173 (Ker) and DCIT v. Astra Idl Ltd. (2001) 247 ITR 564 (Karn.). The Ld. counsel submits that in Kanodia Cold Storage (supra), it is held that building used in cold storage is plant and entitled to higher depreciation; in Taj Mahal Hotel (supra), it is held that the sanitary fittings in hotel fall within the de…

Landbase India Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 4999/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)

…upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in case of 52 taxmann.com 21 in brother but the toll road Co Ltd vs. the assistant Commissioner of income tax. He further relied upon the decision of CIT vs. that my local 82 ITR 44 of the honourable Supreme Court and 243 ITR 81. He further submitted that in Anand the theatre the honourable Supreme Court held that the building used for running a hotel or carrying on cinema theatre and not be held to be a plant. In case of Raj Malhotra, the honourable Supreme Court held that the building in which water was run was not the plant. In the case of Dr P Venkata of the Supreme C…

Landbase India Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 4998/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)

…upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in case of 52 taxmann.com 21 in brother but the toll road Co Ltd vs. the assistant Commissioner of income tax. He further relied upon the decision of CIT vs. that my local 82 ITR 44 of the honourable Supreme Court and 243 ITR 81. He further submitted that in Anand the theatre the honourable Supreme Court held that the building used for running a hotel or carrying on cinema theatre and not be held to be a plant. In case of Raj Malhotra, the honourable Supreme Court held that the building in which water was run was not the plant. In the case of Dr P Venkata of the Supreme C…

Landbase India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 4560/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)

…upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in case of 52 taxmann.com 21 in brother but the toll road Co Ltd vs. the assistant Commissioner of income tax. He further relied upon the decision of CIT vs. that my local 82 ITR 44 of the honourable Supreme Court and 243 ITR 81. He further submitted that in Anand the theatre the honourable Supreme Court held that the building used for running a hotel or carrying on cinema theatre and not be held to be a plant. In case of Raj Malhotra, the honourable Supreme Court held that the building in which water was run was not the plant. In the case of Dr P Venkata of the Supreme C…

M/S Landbase India Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 138/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)

…upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in case of 52 taxmann.com 21 in brother but the toll road Co Ltd vs. the assistant Commissioner of income tax. He further relied upon the decision of CIT vs. that my local 82 ITR 44 of the honourable Supreme Court and 243 ITR 81. He further submitted that in Anand the theatre the honourable Supreme Court held that the building used for running a hotel or carrying on cinema theatre and not be held to be a plant. In case of Raj Malhotra, the honourable Supreme Court held that the building in which water was run was not the plant. In the case of Dr P Venkata of the Supreme C…

Landbase India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 653/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)

…upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in case of 52 taxmann.com 21 in brother but the toll road Co Ltd vs. the assistant Commissioner of income tax. He further relied upon the decision of CIT vs. that my local 82 ITR 44 of the honourable Supreme Court and 243 ITR 81. He further submitted that in Anand the theatre the honourable Supreme Court held that the building used for running a hotel or carrying on cinema theatre and not be held to be a plant. In case of Raj Malhotra, the honourable Supreme Court held that the building in which water was run was not the plant. In the case of Dr P Venkata of the Supreme C…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Landbase India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 4849/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)

…upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in case of 52 taxmann.com 21 in brother but the toll road Co Ltd vs. the assistant Commissioner of income tax. He further relied upon the decision of CIT vs. that my local 82 ITR 44 of the honourable Supreme Court and 243 ITR 81. He further submitted that in Anand the theatre the honourable Supreme Court held that the building used for running a hotel or carrying on cinema theatre and not be held to be a plant. In case of Raj Malhotra, the honourable Supreme Court held that the building in which water was run was not the plant. In the case of Dr P Venkata of the Supreme C…

Hindustan Field Services P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 1(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result these ground No

ITA 4472/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhhindustan Field Services Pvt. Ltd. Dcit Circle-1(1)(2), 8Th Floor, Dakshina, Plot No.2, Mumbai. Sector-11, Cbd Belapur, Navi Mumbai-400614. Vs. Pan: Aabch9517P Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Hiro Rai (Ar) Respondent By : Shri M.K. Singh (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing : 30.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.06.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh; 1. This Appeal By Assessee Under Section 253 Of Income-Tax Act (‘Act’) Is Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax

For Appellant: Shri Hiro Rai (AR)For Respondent: Shri M.K. Singh (Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)

…ld. AR of the assessee on the point of functional test to be applied relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in ACIT vs. Victory Aqua Farm Ltd. (379 ITR 335 (SC), CIT vs. Karnataka Power Corporation ( 274 ITR 268 (SC), CIT vs. Dr. B. Venkata Rao (243 ITR 81 (SC). On the submission that opening WDV cannot be disturbed, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of Delhi Tribunal in Actis Advisers P. Ltd. vs. ACIT (146 ITD 314 (Del-Trib.), decision of Gujarat High Court in Banco Products (India) ltd. vs. DCIT (379 ITR 1 (Guj.), decision of Bangalore Tribunal in Akzo Nobel Coatings India P.…

DCIT 8(2), Mumbai vs. Mumbai International Airport P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeals are statistically allowed and revenue’s

ITA 5655/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan
Section 14ASection 40

…essee and therefore they constitute part of the plant. Thus the assessee is accordingly entitled for depreciation as applicable on plant and machinery. The ld. AR referred the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT V/s Dr. B. Venkata Rao (2000) 243 ITR 81(SC) and submitted that in the case of an operation theatre in the hospital, it has been held to be a part of plant and not a part 18 Mumbai International Airport P Ltd. of building. Ld. AR referred the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT V/s Karnataka Power Corpn. (2000) 247 ITR 268 (SC) and submitted that the power generating s…

Mumbai International Airport P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeals are statistically allowed and revenue’s

ITA 4784/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan
Section 14ASection 40

…essee and therefore they constitute part of the plant. Thus the assessee is accordingly entitled for depreciation as applicable on plant and machinery. The ld. AR referred the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT V/s Dr. B. Venkata Rao (2000) 243 ITR 81(SC) and submitted that in the case of an operation theatre in the hospital, it has been held to be a part of plant and not a part 18 Mumbai International Airport P Ltd. of building. Ld. AR referred the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT V/s Karnataka Power Corpn. (2000) 247 ITR 268 (SC) and submitted that the power generating s…

DCIT 8(2), Mumbai vs. Mumbai International Airport P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeals are statistically allowed and revenue’s

ITA 5592/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan
Section 14ASection 40

…essee and therefore they constitute part of the plant. Thus the assessee is accordingly entitled for depreciation as applicable on plant and machinery. The ld. AR referred the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT V/s Dr. B. Venkata Rao (2000) 243 ITR 81(SC) and submitted that in the case of an operation theatre in the hospital, it has been held to be a part of plant and not a part 18 Mumbai International Airport P Ltd. of building. Ld. AR referred the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT V/s Karnataka Power Corpn. (2000) 247 ITR 268 (SC) and submitted that the power generating s…

Mumbai International Airport P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeals are statistically allowed and revenue’s

ITA 4911/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan
Section 14ASection 40

…essee and therefore they constitute part of the plant. Thus the assessee is accordingly entitled for depreciation as applicable on plant and machinery. The ld. AR referred the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT V/s Dr. B. Venkata Rao (2000) 243 ITR 81(SC) and submitted that in the case of an operation theatre in the hospital, it has been held to be a part of plant and not a part 18 Mumbai International Airport P Ltd. of building. Ld. AR referred the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT V/s Karnataka Power Corpn. (2000) 247 ITR 268 (SC) and submitted that the power generating s…

DCIT 8(2), Mumbai vs. Mumbai Internaiotnal Airport P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeals are statistically allowed and revenue’s

ITA 4675/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan
Section 14ASection 40

…essee and therefore they constitute part of the plant. Thus the assessee is accordingly entitled for depreciation as applicable on plant and machinery. The ld. AR referred the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT V/s Dr. B. Venkata Rao (2000) 243 ITR 81(SC) and submitted that in the case of an operation theatre in the hospital, it has been held to be a part of plant and not a part 18 Mumbai International Airport P Ltd. of building. Ld. AR referred the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT V/s Karnataka Power Corpn. (2000) 247 ITR 268 (SC) and submitted that the power generating s…

Mumbai International Airport P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 8(20, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeals are statistically allowed and revenue’s

ITA 1081/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan
Section 14ASection 40

…essee and therefore they constitute part of the plant. Thus the assessee is accordingly entitled for depreciation as applicable on plant and machinery. The ld. AR referred the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT V/s Dr. B. Venkata Rao (2000) 243 ITR 81(SC) and submitted that in the case of an operation theatre in the hospital, it has been held to be a part of plant and not a part 18 Mumbai International Airport P Ltd. of building. Ld. AR referred the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT V/s Karnataka Power Corpn. (2000) 247 ITR 268 (SC) and submitted that the power generating s…

Addl CIT 8(2), Mumbai vs. Mumbai International Airport P. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3232/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 143(3)Section 40

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ,B,मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “B”, MUMBAI Before Shri Mahavir Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Ashwani Taneja, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2008-09 Addl. CIT 8(2), Mumbai International Airport P. Ltd. R.No.216-A, 3rd Floor, Corporate Centre, Opp. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan Hotel, Lotus Suites, Moral Pipeline, Vs. M.K. Rd. Andheri Kurla Rd. Golden Beach Mumbai Ruiya Park, Juhu Mumbai-400049 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.AAECM6285C Assessment Year: 2008-09 Mumbai International Airport P. Ltd. Addl. CIT 8(2), 3rd Floor, Corporate Centre, Opp. R…

Mumbai International Airport P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 8(2), Mumbai

ITA 2760/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 143(3)Section 40

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ,B,मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “B”, MUMBAI Before Shri Mahavir Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Ashwani Taneja, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2008-09 Addl. CIT 8(2), Mumbai International Airport P. Ltd. R.No.216-A, 3rd Floor, Corporate Centre, Opp. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan Hotel, Lotus Suites, Moral Pipeline, Vs. M.K. Rd. Andheri Kurla Rd. Golden Beach Mumbai Ruiya Park, Juhu Mumbai-400049 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.AAECM6285C Assessment Year: 2008-09 Mumbai International Airport P. Ltd. Addl. CIT 8(2), 3rd Floor, Corporate Centre, Opp. R…