CIT v. Vikram Cotton Mills Ltd.

169 ITR 597Supreme Court of India1988#2192 most cited

What is CIT v. Vikram Cotton Mills Ltd. authority for?

Income generated from activities that are incidental to or intrinsically linked with the preservation, modernization, or expansion of a business, such as temporary letting out of business space or interest from funds retained for business improvement, constitutes business income and not income from other sources.

53

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Vikram Cotton Mills Ltd. · 169 ITR 597 · Supreme Court · section 37(1) · business income · income from other sources · scope of business · incidental income · rental income from business asset · interest income retained for business · part and parcel of business

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

rule of consistencysection 37(1)income from other sourcescompanysection 143(3)indiabusinessinterest

Judgments citing CIT v. Vikram Cotton Mills Ltd.

C.I.T. II Jodhpur vs. M/S Jeewan Ram Choudhary

ITA/185/2013HC Rajasthan17 Sept 2019

Bench: SANGEET LODHA,VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

DCIT 10(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Plaza Hotels P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3405/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhdcit, 10(3)(2), Mumbai Vs Plaza Hotels Pvt Ltd 70-C, Nehru Road Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-99 Pan : Aaacp2117N Appellant Respondednt Appellant By Sh. H.N.Singh Cit-Dr & Sh. Manoj Kumar Sing Sr Dr Respondent By Sh. Arun G. Verma Date Of Hearing 05.09.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 05 -09-2019 O R D E R Per Pawan Singh: This Appeal By Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Cit(A)-17

Section 22Section 23

…er section 28 of the Income-tax Act, 1961." While holding so the Hon"ble High Court has referred to the cases viz,, CEPT Vs. Shri Lakshmi Silk Mills Ltd., 20 ITR 451 (SC), CIT Vs. Calcutta National Bank Ltd., 37 ITR 171 (SC), CIT Vs. Vikram Cotton Mills Ltd., 169 ITR 597 (SC), Sultan Brothers P, Ltd. Vs. CIT, reported in 51 ITR 353 (SCJ and in case of Universal Plast Ltd, Vs. CIT, 237 ITR 454 (SC). After considering various decisions as mentioned above, the Hon"ble High Court has held that the assessee has given hotel on lease for exploiting business asset and, therefore, the Tribunal was correct in holding that…

Plaza Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, 10(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2863/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singh Ay 2013-14 Ay 2014-15

Section 14A

…er section 28 of the Income-tax Act, 1961." While holding so the Hon"ble High Court has referred to the cases viz,, CEPT Vs. Shri Lakshmi Silk Mills Ltd., 20 ITR 451 (SC), CIT Vs. Calcutta National Bank Ltd., 37 ITR 171 (SC), CIT Vs. Vikram Cotton Mills Ltd., 169 ITR 597 (SC), Sultan Brothers P, Ltd. Vs. CIT, reported in 51 ITR 353 (SCJ and in case of Universal Plast Ltd, Vs. CIT, 237 ITR 454 (SC). After considering various decisions as mentioned above, the Hon"ble High Court has held that the assessee has given hotel on lease for exploiting business asset and, therefore, the Tribunal was correct in holding that…

Gulmohar Park Mall Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-4, Ahmedabad

In the result, both appeals are allowed as indicated above

ITA 3560/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Aug 2019AY 2011-12
Section 143(3)Section 57Section 57(2)(iii)

…(a) Mazagaon Dock Ltd vs. CIT 34 ITR 368 (SC) (b) B P Ray vs. ITO 129 295 (SC) (c) S.V. Mercantile Corpo (P) Ltd vs. CIT, 83 ITR 700 (SC) (d) CIT vs. Khostla India Ltd , 700 (SC) (e) Universal Plant Ltd, 237 ITR 454 (SC) (f) CIT Vs. Vikram Cotton Mills Ltd, 169 ITR 597 (SC) (g) Balaji Enterprises vs. CIT 225 ITR 471 (Kerala) (h) PFH Mall & Retails Mgt. Ltd. Vs. Asst, CIT 16 GOT 83 (Kolkata lTAT). The above case laws are duly considered but the same are not found acceptable in view of the facts and circumstances of the assessee's case. The assessee’s ease is a clear case which involves wrong treatment of the ba…

Gulmohar Park Mall Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-4, Ahmedabad

In the result, both appeals are allowed as indicated above

ITA 3559/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Aug 2019AY 2010-11
Section 143(3)Section 57Section 57(2)(iii)

…(a) Mazagaon Dock Ltd vs. CIT 34 ITR 368 (SC) (b) B P Ray vs. ITO 129 295 (SC) (c) S.V. Mercantile Corpo (P) Ltd vs. CIT, 83 ITR 700 (SC) (d) CIT vs. Khostla India Ltd , 700 (SC) (e) Universal Plant Ltd, 237 ITR 454 (SC) (f) CIT Vs. Vikram Cotton Mills Ltd, 169 ITR 597 (SC) (g) Balaji Enterprises vs. CIT 225 ITR 471 (Kerala) (h) PFH Mall & Retails Mgt. Ltd. Vs. Asst, CIT 16 GOT 83 (Kolkata lTAT). The above case laws are duly considered but the same are not found acceptable in view of the facts and circumstances of the assessee's case. The assessee’s ease is a clear case which involves wrong treatment of the ba…

The ACIT, Cochin vs. M/S.Ptl Enterprises Ltd, Cochin

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 162/COCH/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Alok MitraFor Respondent: Sri.Abraham Joseph Markose
Section 56(2)(ii)

…e. either by financially or for some other reasons is let out the land, plant and machinery to a third party for a limited period and receiving rent, such rent is to be treated as income from business. The cases relied upon by the assessee such as 20 ITR 451, 169 ITR 597, 195 ITR 3525, 138 ITR 18, 116 ITR 781, 266 ITR 106, 166 ITR 211, 211 ITR 370, 164 ITR 288 and 237 ITR 454 (mentioned in para 16 of this order) support the case of the assessee. In all these cases, the Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High Courts held that rental income received for a limited period by way of letting out plant and machinery beca…

The ACIT, Cochin vs. M/S.Ptl Enterprises Ltd, Cochin

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 161/COCH/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Alok MitraFor Respondent: Sri.Abraham Joseph Markose
Section 56(2)(ii)

…e. either by financially or for some other reasons is let out the land, plant and machinery to a third party for a limited period and receiving rent, such rent is to be treated as income from business. The cases relied upon by the assessee such as 20 ITR 451, 169 ITR 597, 195 ITR 3525, 138 ITR 18, 116 ITR 781, 266 ITR 106, 166 ITR 211, 211 ITR 370, 164 ITR 288 and 237 ITR 454 (mentioned in para 16 of this order) support the case of the assessee. In all these cases, the Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High Courts held that rental income received for a limited period by way of letting out plant and machinery beca…

The ACIT, Cochin vs. M/S.Ptl Enterprises Ltd, Cochin

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 160/COCH/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Alok MitraFor Respondent: Sri.Abraham Joseph Markose
Section 56(2)(ii)

…e. either by financially or for some other reasons is let out the land, plant and machinery to a third party for a limited period and receiving rent, such rent is to be treated as income from business. The cases relied upon by the assessee such as 20 ITR 451, 169 ITR 597, 195 ITR 3525, 138 ITR 18, 116 ITR 781, 266 ITR 106, 166 ITR 211, 211 ITR 370, 164 ITR 288 and 237 ITR 454 (mentioned in para 16 of this order) support the case of the assessee. In all these cases, the Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High Courts held that rental income received for a limited period by way of letting out plant and machinery beca…

Sri.Navas M.Meeran, Adimaly vs. The DCIT, Ernakulam

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical

ITA 326/COCH/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Mar 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 69Section 801BSection 80I

…Also, subsidy income was received for the production carried out by the assessee and hence, it had direct nexus with the business of the assessee. The Ld. AR also relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Vikram Cotton Mills Ltd. (169 ITR 597) wherein it was held that when an assessee leases out its assets and the intention of the assessee is not to discontinue the business but to lease out its assets for a temporary period as part of exploitation, lease rent received from letting out the assets is assessable as income from business and not as income from other sources. Therefore,…

Sri.Nava M.Meeran, Adimaly vs. The ACIT, Ernakulam

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical

ITA 325/COCH/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Mar 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 69Section 801BSection 80I

…Also, subsidy income was received for the production carried out by the assessee and hence, it had direct nexus with the business of the assessee. The Ld. AR also relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Vikram Cotton Mills Ltd. (169 ITR 597) wherein it was held that when an assessee leases out its assets and the intention of the assessee is not to discontinue the business but to lease out its assets for a temporary period as part of exploitation, lease rent received from letting out the assets is assessable as income from business and not as income from other sources. Therefore,…

M/S. Elel Hotels and Investments Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of Revenue and the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 are dismissed

ITA 4654/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Elel Hotels & Vs. Dcit, Investments Ltd., Central Circle-13, New Delhi Mandlik House, Mandlik Road, Colaba, Mumbai Pan :Aaace2846D (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Years: 2012-13 M/S. Elel Hotels & Vs. Acit, Investments Ltd., Central Circle-03, R/O. Mandlik House, Mandlik Jhandewalan, New Delhi Road, Colaba, Mumbai Pan :Aaace2846D (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Years: 2010-11 Acit, Vs. M/S. Elel Hotels & Central Circle-13, Investments Ltd., New Delhi R/O. Mandlik House, Mandlik Road, Colaba, Mumbai Pan :Aaace2846D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)

…ITR 166. In support of the contention that expenses incurred by the assessee during temporary suspension of business are allowable deduction, the Ld. counsel relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT versus Vikram cotton Mills Ltd 169 ITR 597 and decision of the coordinater bench of the Tribunal in the case of Lodhi Property Company Limited versus DCIT in ITA No. 4851/del/2011. 4.4 On the issue of expenditure of Rs.53,00,209/-sustained by the Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. counsel of the assessee submitted that the amount incurred represented the amount paid to consultant whose architectural pla…

M/S. Mula Pravara Electric Co-Op. Society Ltd., Ahmednagar vs. Deputy Ssistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

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

ITA 1776/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 1776/Pun/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri S.M. DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Amit Dua

…usiness of distribution of electricity and it is only to earn rental income from the laying of the infrastructure of MSEDCL. Referring to the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Universal Plast Limited Vs. CIT 237 ITR 454 (SC) and Vikram Cotton Mills Ltd. 169 ITR 597 (SC), the AO highlighted the “intention of the assessee” to start or to stop the business and in Para No.16 of the assessment order, the AO concluded by stating if there is no intention to resume the business the transaction of earning rent will not be for business purposes. Applying the same to the case of the assessee, the AO relied heavily o…

M/S.Oberon Edifices & Estates P. Ltd, Kochi vs. The Pr.CIT, Trivandrum

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 361/COCH/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. No. 361/Coch/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Oberon Edifices & Estates Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Oberon Mall, Income-Tax, Trivandrum. Nh Bye-Pass, Edapally, Kochi-682 024. [Pan:Aaaco 7942E]

Section 263

…ble as "Income from Business" and not "Income from House Property". According to the Ld. AR, the need to consider the intention of parties qua classification of income has also been upheld by the Supreme Court in the case of Vikram Cotton Mills Limited [1988] 169 ITR 597. 4.9.2 The Ld. AR submitted that the treatment of income as ‘income from business has been upheld in a catena of judgments: 1) Kamataka High Court in the case of Information Technology Park limited [2014] 47 Taxmann.com 239 2) Karnataka High Court in the case of Velankani Information System Private Limited [2013] 35 Taxmann.com 1 3) Madras High…

M/S. Hyderabad Distilleries & Wineries Pvt.Ltd., Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad

Appeal are allowed

ITA 740/HYD/2012[2008-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2018AY 2008-19

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap & Ms Suchitra Kamblem/S Hyderabad Distilleries & Vs Acit Wineries Pvt. Ltd. A-4, Ida, Uppal Circle-2(2) Hyderabad-39 Hyderabad Aaach2679B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 5

…ng decisions have held that rental income should be assessed as ‘business income’ where the business assets/facilities have been let out for commercial exploitation: • CEPT v. Shri Lakshmi Silk Mills Limited: 20 ITR 451 (SC) • CIT v. Vikram Cotton Mills Ltd.: 169 ITR 597 (SC) • Universal Plast Ltd. & Ors. V. CIT: 237 ITR 454 (SC) • Rajendra Flour & Allied Industries : 128 ITR 402 (Del.) • CIT v. Northern India Iron and Steel Co. Ltd.: 211 ITR 370 (Del.) • CIT v. Super Fine Cables Private Ltd.: 154 ITR 532 (Del.) • CIT v. Mysore Wine Products Ltd.: ITA Nos. 408 to 410 of 2008 (Kar.) • CIT v. Kohinoor Tobacco Produ…

M/S Sanjay Shankarrao Jadhao, Amravati vs. Jioint C.I.T. Amravati Range, Amravati

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 66/NAG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur23 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ram Lal Negi

For Appellant: Shri K.P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Gitesh Kumar
Section 234ASection 54B

…wed depreciation expenses amounting to ` 2,88,986. The learned CIT(A) did not accept assessee’s contention that there was a temporary suspension, hence, he distinguished the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v/s Vikram Cotton Mills Ltd., [1988] 169 ITR 597 (SC), which was relied 3 Shri Sanjay Shankarrao Jadhao upon by the learned Counsel for assessee. Against the above order, assessee being aggrieved is in appeal before us. 5. Learned Counsel for assessee made following submissions:– “C) It is undisputed fact that plant and machinery on which depreciation is claimed at ` 2,88,986 is part of bl…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Lodhi Property Company Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4970/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri K.Narasimha Charylodhi Property Company Ltd. Vs Dcit C/O Authorized Representative Sr Circle 4(1) Batliboi & Co., Golf View New Delhi. Corporate Tower-B, Sector 42, Sector Road, Gurgaon. Aabch0299N & Dcit Vs Lodhi Property Company Ltd. Circle 4(1) C/O Authorized Representative Sr Batliboi & New Delhi. Co., Golf View Corporate Tower-B, Sector 42, Sector Road, Gurgaon. Aabch0299N Assessee By Sh. R.S. Singhvi, Ca Sh. Satyajeet Goel, Ca Revenue By Sh. Ravi Kant Gupta, Sr. Dr

Section 35Section 36Section 37(1)

…ITA Nos. 4851 & 4970/Del/2011 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘D’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, HON’BLE PRESIDENT & SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Lodhi Property Company Ltd. vs DCIT C/o Authorized Representative SR Circle 4(1) Batliboi & Co., Golf View New Delhi. Corporate Tower-B, Sector 42, Sector Road, Gurgaon. AABCH0299N & DCIT vs Lodhi Property Company Ltd. Circle 4(1) C/o Authorized Representative SR Batliboi & New Delhi. Co., Golf View Corporate Tower-B, Sector 42, Sector Road, Gurgaon. AABCH0299N Assessee by Sh. R.S. Singhvi, CA Sh. Satyajeet Goel, CA Revenue by Sh. Ra…

Lodhi Property Company Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4851/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri K.Narasimha Charylodhi Property Company Ltd. Vs Dcit C/O Authorized Representative Sr Circle 4(1) Batliboi & Co., Golf View New Delhi. Corporate Tower-B, Sector 42, Sector Road, Gurgaon. Aabch0299N & Dcit Vs Lodhi Property Company Ltd. Circle 4(1) C/O Authorized Representative Sr Batliboi & New Delhi. Co., Golf View Corporate Tower-B, Sector 42, Sector Road, Gurgaon. Aabch0299N Assessee By Sh. R.S. Singhvi, Ca Sh. Satyajeet Goel, Ca Revenue By Sh. Ravi Kant Gupta, Sr. Dr

Section 35Section 36Section 37(1)

…ITA Nos. 4851 & 4970/Del/2011 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘D’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, HON’BLE PRESIDENT & SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Lodhi Property Company Ltd. vs DCIT C/o Authorized Representative SR Circle 4(1) Batliboi & Co., Golf View New Delhi. Corporate Tower-B, Sector 42, Sector Road, Gurgaon. AABCH0299N & DCIT vs Lodhi Property Company Ltd. Circle 4(1) C/o Authorized Representative SR Batliboi & New Delhi. Co., Golf View Corporate Tower-B, Sector 42, Sector Road, Gurgaon. AABCH0299N Assessee by Sh. R.S. Singhvi, CA Sh. Satyajeet Goel, CA Revenue by Sh. Ra…

Sea King Club P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 8(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 64/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 64/Mum/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Sea King Club P. Ltd. I.T.O., Ward-8(3)(1), बनाम/ 202, 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Hotel Golden Manor, Opp. Juhu Church, Juhu, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Mumbai-400 049 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs 5781 M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. Dinkle Hariya ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Hemalatha सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 27.11.2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 07.02.2018 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Dated 07.10.2016 & Pertains To The Assessment Year 2012- 13. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Read As Under: 1.1 The Learned Commissioner Of Income - Tax (Appeals) - 18, Mumbai, ["Ld. Cit (A)"] Erred In Confirming The Action Of The A.O. Of Making Disallowance Of Business Loss Of Rs.15,01,303/-, On The Ground Of 2 Sea King Club P. Ltd. Vs. Ito Discontinuation Of Business Activity Before Commencement Of Previous Year Under Consideration. 1.2 It Is Submitted That, In The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, No Such Disallowance Was Called For. 1.3 Without Prejudice To The Above, In The Alternative, Assuming - But Not Admitting - That Some Disallowance Was Called For, The Computation Of The Same Is Not In Accordance With The Law, Is Arbitrary & Excessive.

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle HariyaFor Respondent: Ms. Hemalatha
Section 30

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “एक-सद"य मामला” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI "ी शमीम याहया, लेखा सद"य के सम" । BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 64/Mum/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Sea King Club P. Ltd. I.T.O., Ward-8(3)(1), बनाम/ 202, 2nd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Hotel Golden Manor, Opp. Juhu Church, Juhu, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Mumbai-400 049 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. AAACS 5781 M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by : Ms. Dinkle Hariya ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Ms.…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Modi Rubber Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 105/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri B.P. Jain, [Assessment Year: 2008-09] The A.C.I.T Vs. M/S Modi Rubber Ltd Circle – 5(1) 4 – 7C, Dda Shopping Centre New Delhi New Friends Colony New Delhi Pan : Aaacm 2062 R [Appellant] [Respondent] Date Of Hearing : 18.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.11.2017 Assessee By : Shri Rohit Jain Ms. Tejasvi Jain, Advocates Revenue By : Shri Atiq Ahmed, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Rohit JainFor Respondent: Shri Atiq Ahmed, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 37(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘E’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, [Assessment Year: 2008-09] The A.C.I.T Vs. M/s Modi Rubber Ltd Circle – 5(1) 4 – 7C, DDA Shopping Centre New Delhi New Friends Colony New Delhi PAN : AAACM 2062 R [Appellant] [Respondent] Date of Hearing : 18.10.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 10.11.2017 Assessee by : Shri Rohit Jain Ms. Tejasvi Jain, Advocates Revenue by : Shri Atiq Ahmed, Sr. DR ORDER PER B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, This appeal of the Revenue arises from the order dated 04.10.2013 of ld. CIT(A)-…

Shri M M Creations, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

ITA 5641/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini & Smt. Beena A. Pillai & M. M. Creations Acit T-481A, Baljeet Nagar Circle-24(1), Behind Patel Nagar Police Station New Delhi Vs. New Delhi. Pan : Aaefm9802A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. R. S. SinghviFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 24Section 56Section 56(2)(iii)

…and CEPT [1954] 26 ITR 765 ; (3) CIT v. Calcutta National Bank Ltd. [1959] 37 ITR 171 ; (4) Sultan Brothers P. Ltd. v. CIT [1964] 51 ITR 353 ; (5) New Savan Sugar and Gur Refining Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1969] 74 ITR 7 and (6) CIT v. Vikram Cotton Mills Ltd. [1988] 169 ITR 597. 14. Keeping in mind aforesaid legal position, we shall now advert to facts of present case more particularly the composite lease agreement dated 25.08.2003. This agreement is entered into between assessee as Lessee and Agilent Technologies (International) Pvt. Ltd. as Lessor, inter alia records that: 2. BASE RENT The rent is payable by the LESS…