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.

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Mahesh Kumar, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 173/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita No. 173/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Dcit, Vs Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Circle-21(1), C-13/170, Sector-3, Rohini, New Delhi Delhi-110085 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aalpk4117B Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. P. Dum Kanunjna, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.09.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.12.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Department Against The Order Dated 17.10.2011 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xxii, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Dum Kanunjna, CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 271A

…7 (ITAT, Mumbai) " Commissioner of Income tea v NSS Investment (P) Limited 158 Taxman 13 (HC - Madras) 17 Mahesh Kumar " Janki Ram Bahadur Ram v Commissioner of Income tax [1965] 57 ITR 21(SC) " Commissioner of Income tax v Vikram Cotton Mills Limited [1988] 169 ITR 597(SC) " Vinod M Shah v Additional Commissioner of Income tax [2010] 38 SOT 503 (ITAT-Mumbai) " Commissioner of Income tax v Laxmi Surgical (P) Limited [1993] 202 ITR 601 (HC-Bombay) " Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax v M/s. SMK Shares & Stock Broking Private Limited (ITA No.799/Mum./2009) (ITAT- Mumbai) " Citadell Agencies (P) Ltd. v Assistant Com…

M/S. Sivanandha Mills Ltd., Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Coimbatore

In the result, ITA No.2106/Mds/13 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2106/CHNY/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jun 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Milind Madhukar Bhusari, CIT
Section 143Section 143(1)

…of revenue is neither important nor a necessity to claim expenses, if such expenditure is otherwise claimable. Generation of revenue is not a sine qua non, for allowance of expenditure. 8.5 The assessee relied on the CIT v. Vikram Cotton Mills Ltd. (1988) 169 ITR 597 (SC), wherein extreme conditions prevailed wherein the Company was closed down and a petition for winding up was presented. A major secured creditor intervened, took possession of the fixed assets and to pay off the creditors and a scheme of lease of the mills was evolved by the High Court, the Supreme Court held that there had been temporary…

Sivanandha Mills Limited, Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Coimbatore

In the result, ITA No.2106/Mds/13 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1216/CHNY/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Milind Madhukar Bhusari, CIT
Section 143Section 143(1)

…of revenue is neither important nor a necessity to claim expenses, if such expenditure is otherwise claimable. Generation of revenue is not a sine qua non, for allowance of expenditure. 8.5 The assessee relied on the CIT v. Vikram Cotton Mills Ltd. (1988) 169 ITR 597 (SC), wherein extreme conditions prevailed wherein the Company was closed down and a petition for winding up was presented. A major secured creditor intervened, took possession of the fixed assets and to pay off the creditors and a scheme of lease of the mills was evolved by the High Court, the Supreme Court held that there had been temporary…

Om Estate & Finance (P) Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 7(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2133/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble S/Shri Sanjay Garg, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1389 & 1390/Mum/2011 Om Estates & Finance Pvt बनाम/ Income Tax Officer, 7(1)(2), Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 764-E Umrigar Bldg, M K Road, Mumbai. Tilak Road, Parsi Colony, Dadar, Mumbai-400014 स्थायी ऱेखा सुं./ Pan : Aaaco1199H (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Devdatta MainkarFor Respondent: Dr.S Pandian
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 194Section 24

…आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण “सी” न्यायऩीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “ C ” BENCH, MUMBAI सर्वश्री संजय गगव, न्याययक सदस्य एवुं श्री राजेश क मार, ऱेखा सदस्य के समऺ । BEFORE HON’BLE S/SHRI SANJAY GARG, JM AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1389 and 1390/Mum/2011 Om Estates and Finance Pvt बनाम/ Income Tax Officer, 7(1)(2), Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 764-E Umrigar Bldg, M K Road, Mumbai. Tilak Road, Parsi colony, Dadar, Mumbai-400014 स्थायी ऱेखा सुं./ PAN : AAACO1199H (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. अऩीराथी की ओय से/Appellant by : Shri Devdatta Mainkar प्रत्मथी की ओय से/…

Om Estates & Finance P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 7(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1390/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble S/Shri Sanjay Garg, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1389 & 1390/Mum/2011 Om Estates & Finance Pvt बनाम/ Income Tax Officer, 7(1)(2), Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 764-E Umrigar Bldg, M K Road, Mumbai. Tilak Road, Parsi Colony, Dadar, Mumbai-400014 स्थायी ऱेखा सुं./ Pan : Aaaco1199H (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Devdatta MainkarFor Respondent: Dr.S Pandian
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 194Section 24

…आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण “सी” न्यायऩीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “ C ” BENCH, MUMBAI सर्वश्री संजय गगव, न्याययक सदस्य एवुं श्री राजेश क मार, ऱेखा सदस्य के समऺ । BEFORE HON’BLE S/SHRI SANJAY GARG, JM AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1389 and 1390/Mum/2011 Om Estates and Finance Pvt बनाम/ Income Tax Officer, 7(1)(2), Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 764-E Umrigar Bldg, M K Road, Mumbai. Tilak Road, Parsi colony, Dadar, Mumbai-400014 स्थायी ऱेखा सुं./ PAN : AAACO1199H (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. अऩीराथी की ओय से/Appellant by : Shri Devdatta Mainkar प्रत्मथी की ओय से/…

Om Estates & Finance P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 7(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1389/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble S/Shri Sanjay Garg, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1389 & 1390/Mum/2011 Om Estates & Finance Pvt बनाम/ Income Tax Officer, 7(1)(2), Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 764-E Umrigar Bldg, M K Road, Mumbai. Tilak Road, Parsi Colony, Dadar, Mumbai-400014 स्थायी ऱेखा सुं./ Pan : Aaaco1199H (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Devdatta MainkarFor Respondent: Dr.S Pandian
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 194Section 24

…आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण “सी” न्यायऩीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “ C ” BENCH, MUMBAI सर्वश्री संजय गगव, न्याययक सदस्य एवुं श्री राजेश क मार, ऱेखा सदस्य के समऺ । BEFORE HON’BLE S/SHRI SANJAY GARG, JM AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1389 and 1390/Mum/2011 Om Estates and Finance Pvt बनाम/ Income Tax Officer, 7(1)(2), Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 764-E Umrigar Bldg, M K Road, Mumbai. Tilak Road, Parsi colony, Dadar, Mumbai-400014 स्थायी ऱेखा सुं./ PAN : AAACO1199H (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. अऩीराथी की ओय से/Appellant by : Shri Devdatta Mainkar प्रत्मथी की ओय से/…

Sharadamba Enterprises, Hubli vs. Asst.C.I.T., Hubli

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

ITA 1286/BANG/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 May 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Sharadama Enterprises, Station Road, Hubli. … Appellant Pan:Abofs 5233 J Vs Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 1(1), Hubli. … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Naginchand Khincha,CAFor Respondent: Smt.Rukmani Attri, JCIT(DR)
Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 40

…ee-firm. Exploitation of the business asset would yield only business income as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Maheshwari Devi Jute Mills Ltd. (57 ITR 36), Universal Plasts Ltd. v. CIT (237 ITR 454), CIT Vs. Vikram Cotton Mills Ltd. (169 ITR 597). The assessee-firm has not produced any evidence rebutting the treatment given in the books of account to the building. In the absence of any evidence, it is difficult to hold that rental income is assessable as income from house property. The decisions relied upon by the assessee-firm are not applicable. Admittedly, in those cases, building was…

ITO 10(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Divyansh Construction P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 583/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri N.K.Billaiya & Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.583/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Income Tax Officer 10(1)(4) बनाम/ M/S. Divyansh Construction 457, Aayakar Bhavan, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 4Th Floor, M.K.Marg, 16, Naval Palace, Mumbai - 400020 Nariman Point, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai - 400057 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccd1341C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""थ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri K. Ravi Ramachandran
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 71

…sessee has treated the rental income as income from other sources but u/s. 71 of the Act except from the capital gain, different heads of income of the same year can be set off. In view of the law settled in the case of CIT Vs. Vikram Cotton Mills Ltd. (1998) 169 ITR 597 (SC). In the instant case there was a loss in the revenue account and there was income from both other sources, hence, this income can be adjusted against business loss. Therefore, in the said circumstances learned CIT(A) has rightly adjudicated the matter of controversy which does not required any interference in this appellate stage. Hence the…

M/S Consulate Constructions, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee's appeals for Assessment Years 2001-02 and 2003-04 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 944/BANG/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Feb 2015AY 2001-02
For Appellant: Shri A.Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. K. Shankar Prasad, JCIT (D.R)
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 154

…n law in treating the business income of the appellant received from the temporarily letting out commercial complex as income from house property without applying the party of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Vikram Cotton Mills Ltd., reported in 169 ITR 597 on the facts and circumstances of the case. The assessment of a sum of Rs.01,69,449 as income from house property in the order of rectification is not in accordance with law. 8. The Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that the status of the appellant is firm and any receipts or income has to be treated as income from business as per the provis…

The Commissioner of Income Tax V vs. Smt. Ch. Uma

ITTA/227/2013HC Telangana10 Jul 2013

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Ch.Veeraju AND co

ITTA/207/2013HC Telangana05 Jul 2013

Commissioner of Income Tax - VI vs. M/s. S.P. Steels

ITTA/200/2013HC Telangana04 Jul 2013

CIT vs. Jv Electronics Pvt Ltd

The appeal is disposed of

ITA - 300 / 2002HC Delhi18 Nov 2011
Section 80Section 80H

…ce was let out temporarily. There was no intention to part with the business asset. Even after such letting out, the said space continued to be used for industrial purposes as a factory. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Vikram Cotton Mills, 169 ITR 597 we uphold the decision of the CIT (A ) in allowing deduction u/s 80HHC on rental income for the reason that it was part and parcel of the business. 10. Regarding interest income from fixed deposits, the assessee company has retained these profits earned in the normal course of business for the betterment and improvement of the business. T…