How many judgments cite Karanpura Development Co. Ltd. v. CIT?

157 judgments on BharatTax cite Karanpura Development Co. Ltd. v. CIT (44 ITR 362), spanning 2009 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Karanpura Development Co. Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 143(2), Section 115BBE, Section 133A, Section 143(1), Section 68.

Karanpura Development Co. Ltd. v. CIT

44 ITR 362Supreme Court of India1962#625 most cited

What is Karanpura Development Co. Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

The income derived from letting out assets, such as coal mining leases, constitutes "profits and gains of business or profession" if the primary object and activity of the assessee company are to acquire, develop, and sub-lease such assets. This classification holds even if the income arises from letting, provided the letting itself constitutes the assessee's business.

157

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Karanpura Development Co. Ltd. v. CIT · income classification · business income · letting out assets as business · profits and gains of business · coal mining leases · Section 22 · Section 24 · income from business or profession · heads of income

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 143(2)Section 115BBE Section 133A Section 143(1)Section 68 Section 69A Section 139

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 24(a)annual value annual letting value house property income section 22 profits and gains of business or profession rule of consistency section 69b section 24 income from other sources addition u/s 68 liable to tax

Judgments citing Karanpura Development Co. Ltd. v. CIT

Parshwanath Buildestate Private Limited, Kota vs. ACIT/DCIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result, both the appeal filed by separate assessee are allowed in terms of the above observations

ITA 1357/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Adv.&For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal, CIT a

Section 133ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 244ASection 69C

…ncome has to be assessed under the residuary head of income i.e. item F of S. 14. Therefore, income added u/s 68 or 69 etc. has to be given a specific head in terms of S. 14. 1.3 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Karanpura Development Co Ltd vs. CIT [1962] 44 ITR 362 (SC) held that these heads are in a sense exclusive to one another and income whichfalls within one head cannot be brought to tax under another head. Further, the Hon’ble SupremeCourt in case of Nalinikant Ambalal Mody v CIT [1966] 61 ITR 428, has held that whether anincome falls under one head or another is to be decided according to the common n…

Jaibhagwan Banarasidas Jindal, Jalna vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Jalna

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2016/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Jaiprakash BairagraFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…ve been routed through a negotiable instrument in a bank. In this case, the substance proves that the transactions were bogus, and the form given to them was a receipt. Reliance is placed on the judicial precedent of Karanpura Development Co. Ltd. Vs CIT (SC) 44 ITR 362. 5.3.6 Further, considering the tax evasion in the instant case, it is pertinent to refer to ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Rajendran Chingaravelu Vs. R.K. Mishra (320 ITR 1), in which the Hon'ble Apex Court noted with grave concerned the rampant circulation of unaccounted money destroying the economy of our country.…

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. M/s Pokarna Limited

ITTA/273/2012HC Telangana18 Feb 2025

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

Shiv Vegpro Private Limited, Kota vs. PCIT-Udaipur, Udaipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1014/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, (Adv.) &For Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, (CIT-DR)

Section 147Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…come has to be assessed under the residuary head of income i.e. item F of S. 14. Therefore, income added u/s 68 or 69 etc. has to be given a specific head in terms of S. 14. 5.3 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Karanpura Development Co Ltd vs. CIT [1962] 44 ITR 362 (SC) held that these heads are in a sense exclusive to one another and income which falls within one head cannot be brought to tax under another head. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Nalinikant Ambalal Mody v CIT [1966] 61 ITR 428, has held that whether an income falls under one head or another is to be decided according to the commo…

M/S Shah Traders, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-(Appeals) NFAC, Mumbai

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

ITA 5564/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailm/S. Shah Traders, Dw-6251, Bharat Diamond Bourse, Bandra Kurla Complex, G-Block, Bandra East Mumbai – 400051 ............... Appellant Pan : Aabfs6536J V/S Dcit, Circle – 19(3), Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug Parel, ……………… Respondent Mumbai - 400012

For Appellant: Shri Amit JhaveriFor Respondent: Shri Pushkaraj Bhangepatil, Sr.DR

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69C

…y have been rooted through a negotiable instrument in a bank. In this case, the substance proves that the transaction were bogus and the form given to them was a receipt. Reliance is placed on the judicial precedent of Karanpura Development Co. Ltd Vs CIT(SC) 44 ITR 362. During the assessment proceedings the AO made aware the assesse that the other party to transaction is paper concern only and no goods have exchanged actually. The transaction has been evidenced on paper trail only. Hence, the onus of proving the transaction to be a genuine one squarely lies on the assesse. The assesse was asked to file confirmat…

The Commissioner of Income Tax III vs. M/S. Savijana Sea Foods Pvt. Ltd

ITTA/55/2010HC Telangana20 Dec 2024

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

Alok Vijawat, Jaipur vs. PCIT, Udaipur

ITA 605/JPR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Devang Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…ncome has to be assessed under the residuary head of income i.e. item F of S. 14. Therefore, income added u/s 68 or 69 etc. has to be given a specific head in terms of S. 14. 2.3 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Karanpura Development Co Ltd vs. CIT [1962] 44 ITR 362 (SC) held that these heads are in a sense exclusive to one another and income which falls within one head cannot be brought to tax under another head. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Nalinikant Ambalal Mody v CIT [1966] 61 ITR 428, has held that whether an income falls under one head or another is to be decided according to the commo…

Sh. Surendra Kumar Patni, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 977/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalshri Surendra Kumar Patni, C/O. M/S. Kalani & Co., 5Th Floor, Milestone Building, Gandhi Nagar Turn, Tonk Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan – 302 015. Pan No.: Adupp9249 D ..... Appellant Vs. Acit, Circle-2, New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Dass Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan – 302 005. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Mr. P.C. Parwal, Ca, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Mrs. Anita Rinesh, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/11/2024 O R D E R Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (A), Jaipur Dated 25.06.2024 Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For A.Y. 2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Appellant: Mr. P.C. Parwal, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 133Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 69Section 69B

…of income are in a sense exclusive of one another, and income which falls within one head cannot be assigned to, or taxed under, another head. We take strength by the judgment of Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Karanpura Development Co. Pvt Ltd [1962] 44 ITR 362 (SC). Relevant para of the case law for your reference is extracted herein below: “The Income-tax Act puts the tax on income, profits and gains irrespective of the source from which they are derived. Section 3 of the Act provides, inter alia, that income-tax shall be charged on the total income of every company. Under section 4(1) of the Act, tota…

Mr. Amar Rahman, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai

ITA 1352/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1352/Chny/2023 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri Amar Rahman Acit बनाम/ 547, Ideal Home Township Corporate Circle-1(1) 12Th Cross, Rajarajeswari Nagar Vs. Chennai. Mysore Road, Bengaluru-560 098. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadpr-7258-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Mr. Quadir Hoseyn (Advocate) & Dr.L.Natarajan (Ca)- Ld.Ars " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) - Ld. Dr

For Appellant: Mr. Quadir Hoseyn (Advocate) &For Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) - Ld. DR

Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘ए’ "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय +ी मनोज कुमार अ/वाल ,लेखा सद4 एवं माननीय +ी मनु कुमार िग7र, "ाियक सद4 के सम8। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM आयकरअपील सं./ ITA No.1352/Chny/2023 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri Amar Rahman ACIT बनाम/ 547, Ideal Home Township Corporate Circle-1(1) 12th Cross, Rajarajeswari Nagar Vs. Chennai. Mysore Road, Bengaluru-560 098. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AADPR-7258-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant by : Mr. Quadi…

E M C Projects Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 7(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1063/KOL/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Aug 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 1063/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Emc Projects Pvt. Limited,………………..………Appellant 2, Robinson Street, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata-700017 [Pan:Aaace7218F] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,………Respondent Circle-7(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Jitendra Kantilal Surti, Jcit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 12, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 20, 2024 O R D E R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…s no other income of the assessee except the income from letting out of the said properties, which was the business of the assessee. On those facts, this Court came to the conclusion that judgment of this Court in Karanpura Development Co. Ltd. v. CIT, (1962) 44 ITR 362 was applicable and the judgment of this Court in East India Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd. v. CIT, (1961) 42 ITR 49 was held to be distinguishable. In the present case, we find that situation is just the reverse. The judgment in East India Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd. which would be applicable which is discussed in para 8 of Ch…

Shah Sandeep Anantkumar HUF, Mumbai vs. ITO-32(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4628/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh KothariFor Respondent: Shri R.R.Makwana, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69A

…ve been routed through a negotiable instrument in a bank. In this case, the substance proves that the transactions were bogus, and the form given to them was a receipt. Reliance is placed on the judicial precedent of Karanpura Development Co. Ltd. Vs CIT (SC) 44 ITR 362. 5.3.6. The Bombay High Court in Income Tax Appeal No.18/2017 dated April, 10th 2017 in the case of Bimalchand Jain L/H Shanti Devi Bimalchand Jain vs. CIT, Nagpur & Another had held as follows: "....... On hearing the learned counsel for the assessee and on a perusal of the orders of the income tax authorities, it appears that there is no scope f…

M/S Active Securities Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

The appeals are allowed

ITA 2335/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Puneet Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 24

…10 of the Income-tax Act. It was assessable only under section 9, and it was correctly assessed under section 9 of the Income-tax Act in the course of the proceedings to assess the assessee to income-tax." 10. In Karan Pura Development Co. Ltd. v. CIT[1962] 44 ITR 362 (SC) the Supreme Court indicated the possibility that the ownership of property and leasing it out may be done either as part of business or as landowner. The relevant observations, are as follows: "Ownership of property and leasing it out may be done as a part of business, or it may be done as landowner. Whether it is the one or the other must n…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur vs. U R Investments, Jaipur

15. In view of the above discussion, finding no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order, present appeal by the Department challenging the impugned order deserves to be dismissed

ITA 765/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri R.K. Bhatra (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl. CIT) (V.H.)

Section 234B

…es of Association, in case of a company, or from the partnership deed, in case of a firm. In this regard, reference may be made to decisions in Chennai Properties & Investments Limited v. CIT, [2015] 373 ITR 673 (SC) ; Karanpura Development Co. Limited [1962] 44 ITR 362 (SC) and Rayala Corporation (P.) Limited v. ACIT, 2016] 386 ITR 500 (SC). Even, in the case of Raj Dadarkar & Associates v. ACIT, Civil Appeal Nos 6455-6460 of 2017, Hon’ble Apex Court has held that apart from relying on the object clause, the assessee-taxpayer would be required to produce or refer any other material to show the conduct of activit…

Directi Internet Solutions Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 5(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 3019/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Mr. Firoze B. AndhyarujinaFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA Nos. 3019 & 3018/MUM/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd., ITO-5(1)(3), Directiplex, Acme-1 Tech Park, Old Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Nagaradas Road, Andheri East, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400069. Mumbai-400020. PAN NO. AACCG 4058 M Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Firoze B. Andhyarujina Revenue by : Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR : Date of Hearing 20/02/2024 Date of pronouncement : 01/03/2024 ORDER PER OM PRAKA…

Directi Internet Solutions Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 5(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 3018/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Mr. Firoze B. AndhyarujinaFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR

DCIT -26(1), Mumbai vs. Shreyas Builders, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2404/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2404/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit-17(1) बिधम/ Shreyas Builders Room No. 117, 1St Floor, G- A-42, 4Th Floor Roop Vs. Block, Kautliya Bhavan, Darshan, Juhu Lane, Bandra Kurla Complex, Andheri (West), Mumbai- Mumbai-400051. 400058. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aapfs5485E (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Bhadresh Doshi Revenue By: Dr. Kishor Dhule (Cit,Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/02/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax/Nfac, [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit”], Delhi Dated 08.05.2023 For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. In The Several Grounds Raised In The Appeal, The Revenue Has Agitated The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Holding That The Assessee Was Engaged In The Business Of Real Estate Development & Therefore The Plot Of Land Held By It Was In Nature Of ‘Stock-In-Trade’ As Opposed To The Ao’S Action Of Holding The Said Plot Of Land To Be In Nature Of ‘Capital Asset’. According To Revenue Therefore, Since The Said Plot Of Land To Be In Nature Of ‘Capital Asset’, The Levy Of Capital Gains Tax Stood Triggered Upon Execution Of Joint Development Agreement (Herein

For Appellant: Shri Bhadresh DoshiFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule (CIT,DR)

Section 2(47)(v)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI BR BASKARAN, AM AND SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2404/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) DCIT-17(1) बिधम/ Shreyas Builders Room No. 117, 1st Floor, G- A-42, 4th Floor Roop Vs. Block, Kautliya Bhavan, Darshan, Juhu Lane, Bandra Kurla Complex, Andheri (West), Mumbai- Mumbai-400051. 400058. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAPFS5485E (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Bhadresh Doshi Revenue by: Dr. Kishor Dhule (CIT,DR) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing: 01/02/2024 घोषणा…

Udayan Grover, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC), Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2880/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleudayan Grover V. National Faceless Appeal Centre Panch Mahal Delhi Panch Sristhi Complex {Acit – 26(3), Bkc, Mumbai} Powai, Mumbai - 400072 Pan: Aclpg0572G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vimal Punmiya Department Represented By : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 57Section 68

…o, I would like to place reliance on the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the following cases wherein it has been held that the essence and substance of a transaction should prevail over its form: 1. Karanpura Development Co. Ltd vs. CIT [1962] 44 ITR 362 (SC) 2. CIT vs. Panipat Woollen& General Mills Co. Ltd. [1976] 103 ITR 66 (SC) 8.21 Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Smt. Nayantara G. Agrawal vs.CIT [1994] 207 ITR 639 (Bom.) …. 8.22 Further, reliance is placed on the following decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein it is held that wh…

M/S. Oberoi Building & Investment (P) Limited vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Kolkata & Anr

The appeal is allowed

ITA/168/2010HC Calcutta15 Dec 2023

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI,HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ

For Respondent: - Mr. Smarajit Roychowdhury, Adv

Section 22Section 269USection 27Section 28

…ble Supreme Court quoted with approval the judgment of privy council ( reported in 44 ITR page 377) and applying the law laid down in Sultan Brothers (P) Limited Versus CIT (1964) 51 ITR 353 (SC) and Karanpura Development Company Limited Versus CIT (1962) 44 ITR 362 (SC): AIR 1962 SC 429, held as under. “Before we refer to the Constitution Bench judgment in the case of Sultan Brothers (P.) Ltd., we would be well advised to discuss the law laid down authoritatively and succinctly by this court in Karanpura Development Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1962] 44 ITR 362 (SC). That was also a case where the company, which w…

The ACIT, Corp Circle-1(2), Kochi vs. M/S.Knowell Realtors India P. Ltd, Kochi

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals are allowed

ITA 193/COCH/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Santosh P. Abraham, AdvFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamuna Devi, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 268A

…siness. That is,the income derived is not from the exercise of property rights only, but is derived from carrying on an adventure or concern in the nature of trade. The aspect stands explained by the Apex Court in Karanpura Development Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1962] 44 ITR 362 (SC), which observations stand also extracted in it’s recent decision in Rayala Corp. Pvt. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2016] 386 ITR 500 (SC): ‘As has been already pointed out in connection with the other two cases where there is a letting out of premises and collection of rents the assessment on property basis may be correct but not so, where the letting…

The ACIT, Corp Circle-1(2), Kochi vs. M/S.Knowell Realtors India P. Ltd, Kochi

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals are allowed

ITA 192/COCH/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Santosh P. Abraham, AdvFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamuna Devi, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 268A