East India Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd. v. CIT

Banzai Estates P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am

…C) and Rayala Corporation (P) Ltd. For this Hon’ble Supreme Court relied on the Karanpura Development Co. Ltd. v. CIT, (1962) 44 ITR 362 and the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of East India Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd. v. CIT, (1961) 42 ITR 49 was distinguished. 7. In the given facts and circumstances and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Dadarkar & Associates (supra), respectfully following the same, we allow the claim of the assessee and direct the AO to assessee the rental income situated at MBC Tower TTK road, Chennai as income from house property, and consequ…

Banzai Estates P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am

…C) and Rayala Corporation (P) Ltd. For this Hon’ble Supreme Court relied on the Karanpura Development Co. Ltd. v. CIT, (1962) 44 ITR 362 and the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of East India Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd. v. CIT, (1961) 42 ITR 49 was distinguished. 7. In the given facts and circumstances and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Dadarkar & Associates (supra), respectfully following the same, we allow the claim of the assessee and direct the AO to assessee the rental income situated at MBC Tower TTK road, Chennai as income from house property, and consequ…

Sea Scan Marine Services P. Ltd, Goa vs. DCIT CC-9, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Sea Scan Marine Services Dcit Cc-9, Pvt. Ltd., Fire Services Old Cgo Building, Compound, St. Inez Panaji, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Goa-403001 Pan: Aadcs4236J (Appellant) (Respondent)

…the capacity as a trader or businessmen. In support of this submission, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the following decisions: 1. United Commercial Bank Ltd. Vs. CIT [1975] 32 ITR 688 (SC). 2. East India Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd. [1961] 42 ITR 49 (SC). 3. Karanpura Development Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT [1962] 44 ITR 362(SC). 4. Sultan Brothers (P) Ltd. Vs CIT [1964] 51 ITR 353 (SC). 5. Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. vs. CIT [2015] 373 ITR 673. 6. Abdul Qayume Vs. CIT [1990] 50 Taxman 171 (All). 7. Profile Consultancy Services (P) Ltd. Vs CIT [2016] 161 296 (Mumbai-Trib.). 4. On the other hand…

Nam Developers P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 9(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is hereby partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Arora & Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.5416/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Nam Develoeprs Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer 9(2)(3) बनाम/ 43, Ramdas Nayak Marg, Aayakar Bhavan. M.K.Road, Vs. Hill Road, Opp. Elco Market, Mumbai - 400020 Bandra (West) Mumbai - 400050 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn9198F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

…elevant for the assessment year in question. 9. In the said circumstances how the income is required to be assessed has been held in East India Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal, Supreme Court of India [1961] 42 ITR 49 SC. In view of the said circumstances we are of the view that the CIT(A) has decided the matter of controversy judiciously and correctly which does not required to be interfere with at this appellate stage. 10. In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is hereby partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 28th Se…

City Centre Mall Nashik P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 6(2) (Now Asst CIT 6(2)), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Amarjit Singh (JM) I.T.A. No. 1783/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year 2010-11) City Centre Mall Nashik ACIT 6(2) Pvt. Limited Vs. Aayakar Bhavan Room No. 62, Plot No. 8-9 M.K. Road Parekh Mahal Mumbai-400 020. Jamshetji Road Sakharam Keer Marg Mahim, Mumbai-400 016. (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No.AACCC6422B Assessee by Shri Rajesh Athavale & Ms. Bhakti Shah Department by Ms. Radha Katyal Narang Date of Hearing 10.6.2016 Date of Pronouncement 23.9.2016 O R D E R Per B.R. Baskaran (AM) :- The appeal filed by the assessee i…

Ashapura Developers, Mumbai vs. JCIT -Range 25(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby Allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7119/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S. Ashapura Developers Jt. Commissioner Of Income बनाम/ 101B, Hallmark Business Tax Range 25(1) Vs. Plaza, Opp. Gurunanak 1St Floor, Hospital, Sant Gyaneshwar Pratyakskar Bhavan, Marg, Bandra (East), Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400051 Mumbai - 400051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aanfa1971F

…e difference of facts, which is a violation of Principle of Law. i. Azimganj Estate Pvt. Ltd. V/s. CIT [ITA No.242 of 2003 (KOL)] ii Roma Builders [ITA No.4118/Mum/2008 Dt.09.03.2011, 60 DTR (Mum) TRI 231] iii East India Housing & Land Development Trust Ltd. [42 ITR 49 (SC)] iv Sultan Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs/ CIT [51 ITR 353 (SC)] v O. RM. SP. SV. Firm V/s. CIT [39 ITR 327 (MAD)] vi Salisbury House Estates Ltd. V/s. FRY [AC 432 (HL)] vii Atma Ram Properties (P)Ltd. V/s. Dy.cIT [85 ITD 86 (DEL)] 3. However, the assessee has take the number of grounds in his appeal but the sole ground which is in dispute is that the…

DCIT 1(3), Mumbai vs. Sushena Properties Ltd, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5130/Mum/2013 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Sushena Properties Ltd., बनधम/ Asstt. Commissioner Of Income The Times Of India Building, Tax -1(3), Vs. 2Nd Floor, Dr D N Road, Mumbai. Fort, Mumbai-400001 आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5257/Mum/2013 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08) बनधम/ Dy. Commissioner Of Income Sushena Properties Ltd., Tax -1(3), 564, 5Th Floor, The Times Of India Building, Vs. 2Nd Floor, Dr D N Road, Aayakar Bhavan, M K Road, Fort, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400001

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ “ई” म ुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JM AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5130/Mum/2013 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Sushena Properties Ltd., बनधम/ Asstt. Commissioner of Income The Times of India Building, Tax -1(3), Vs. 2nd floor, Dr D N Road, Mumbai. Fort, Mumbai-400001 आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5257/Mum/2013 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08) बनधम/ Dy. Commissioner of Income Sushena Properties Ltd., Tax -1(3), 564, 5th floor, The Times of India Building, Vs. 2nd floor, Dr D N…

Sushena Properties Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 1(3), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5130/Mum/2013 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Sushena Properties Ltd., बनधम/ Asstt. Commissioner Of Income The Times Of India Building, Tax -1(3), Vs. 2Nd Floor, Dr D N Road, Mumbai. Fort, Mumbai-400001 आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5257/Mum/2013 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08) बनधम/ Dy. Commissioner Of Income Sushena Properties Ltd., Tax -1(3), 564, 5Th Floor, The Times Of India Building, Vs. 2Nd Floor, Dr D N Road, Aayakar Bhavan, M K Road, Fort, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400001

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ “ई” म ुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JM AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5130/Mum/2013 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Sushena Properties Ltd., बनधम/ Asstt. Commissioner of Income The Times of India Building, Tax -1(3), Vs. 2nd floor, Dr D N Road, Mumbai. Fort, Mumbai-400001 आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5257/Mum/2013 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08) बनधम/ Dy. Commissioner of Income Sushena Properties Ltd., Tax -1(3), 564, 5th floor, The Times of India Building, Vs. 2nd floor, Dr D N…

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

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed

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

…rporation 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 the assessee’s construction business and that derived from leasing activity is, both, returned and assessed as ‘business income’ and ‘income from house property’ respectively. That is…

Poojeet Enterprises, Mumbai vs. ACIT 25(3), Mumbai

…tting out the flats.So,there was no justification in taxing the rental income as income from business.The assessee was not in the business of letting out properties.Here,we would like to refer to the case of East India Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd.( 42 ITR 49).In that matter it was found that the assessee which was incorporated with the objects of buying and developing landed properties and promoting and developing markets, purchased 10 bighas of land in the town of Calcutta and set up a market therein. The question before the Hon’ble Court was as to whether the income realised from the tenants of the s…

DCIT 22(2), Navi Mumbai vs. Sky Star, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm M/S. Sky Star, Skyline Oasis, Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Premier Road, Nr. Vidyabihar Income Tax, Range 22 Station, Ghatkopar (W), (2), Mumbai Mumbai 400086 Pan: Abcfs 0618M Appellant .. Respondent The Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Sky Star, Skyline Oasis, Income Tax, Range 22 (2), Premier Road, Nr. Vidyabihar Mumbai Station, Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai 400086 Pan: Abcfs 0618M Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By Shri Naresh Jain, Ar Revenue By None

…ince building which is capital asset of the assessee, and if the same is given on long term lease, it would yield rental income from house property in view of the decision rendered in the case of M/s. East India Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd. Vs CIT [42 ITR 49 (SC) wherein it has been concluded that the income received from tenants, from shops and stalls by the assessee is income from property as it falls under specific head described u/s 9 of the Act and that there is no alteration in character of income because of assessee’s object and, therefore, same is liable to tax as income from property and not…

Sky Star, Mumbai vs. DCIT 22(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm M/S. Sky Star, Skyline Oasis, Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Premier Road, Nr. Vidyabihar Income Tax, Range 22 Station, Ghatkopar (W), (2), Mumbai Mumbai 400086 Pan: Abcfs 0618M Appellant .. Respondent The Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Sky Star, Skyline Oasis, Income Tax, Range 22 (2), Premier Road, Nr. Vidyabihar Mumbai Station, Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai 400086 Pan: Abcfs 0618M Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By Shri Naresh Jain, Ar Revenue By None

…ince building which is capital asset of the assessee, and if the same is given on long term lease, it would yield rental income from house property in view of the decision rendered in the case of M/s. East India Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd. Vs CIT [42 ITR 49 (SC) wherein it has been concluded that the income received from tenants, from shops and stalls by the assessee is income from property as it falls under specific head described u/s 9 of the Act and that there is no alteration in character of income because of assessee’s object and, therefore, same is liable to tax as income from property and not…

Vishwanath Acharaya, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 11(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7976/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08)

…n of plot by the firm has been filed by the assessee. The CIT(A) relied upon the decision in the case of D M Vakil v. CIT(Bom.) 14 ITR 298 , Indian City Properties Ltd. v. CIT (Cal) 55 ITR 262, East India Housing and Land Development Trust Limited v. CIT (SC) 42 ITR 49 wherein it is held that the owner of property is liable to be charged to House Property Income. Thus, the CIT(A) upheld the orders of the AO. The CIT(A) after considering the submission of the assessee, restricted the disallowance to 8% of market value of the property after referring to the provisions of section 7(1) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 re…