PFH Mall & Retail Management Ltd. v. ITO

DCIT CC 3(4) CE RG 3, MUMBAI vs. SAMIR NARAIN BHOJWANI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

…se of property rights properly so-called so as 10 fail under s. 9 but income from operations of o trading nature of falling under 10 of the Act;" 13 A.Y.2012-13 7.16 The Calcutta Bench of the Tribunal in the case of PFH Mall and Retail Management LM, Vs. ITO 110 ITD 337 had held that if the main intention of letting out is found to be exploitation of the immovable property by way of commercial activities and not a simple letting out per se, then the resulting income must be held as business income. Further, the Bombay High Court in the case of Mohiddin Hotels P. Ltd. 284 ITR 229 had held as under :- "It needs no…

ACIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. SAMIR NARIAN BHOJWANI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed and the cross-objection filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.331/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बिधम/ Acit-Cc-3(4) Central Shri Samir Narain Bhojwani 1St Floor, Samir Complex, St. Range-3 Vs. Andrews Road, Opp, Holy Room No. 401, 4Th Floor, Family Hospital, Bandra Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- (W), Mumbai-400050. 400020. Co. No.134/Mum/2016 (Arising Out Of Ita. No. 331/Mum/2015) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बिधम/ Shri Samir Narain Bhojwani Acit-Cc-24 & 26 1St Floor, Samir Complex, St. Room No. 401, 4Th Floor, Vs. Andrews Road, Opp, Holy Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Family Hospital, Bandra 400020. (W), Mumbai-400050. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. :Aabpb9150H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6807/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिधम/ Acit Cc-24 & 26 Central Shri Samir Narain Bhojwani 1St Floor, Samir Complex, St. Range-5 Vs. Andrews Road, Opp. Holy Room No.404, 4Th Floor Family Hospital, Bandra Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- (W), Mumbai-400050. 400020. Co. No.41/Mum/2016 (Arising Out Of Ita. No. 6153/Mum/2014) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बिधम/ Shri Samir Narain Bhojwani Acit Cc-24 & 26 Central 1St Floor, Samir Complex, St. Range-5 Vs. Andrews Road, Opp. Holy Room No.404, 4Th Floor Family Hospital, Bandra Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-

…not from exercise of property rights properly so-called so as 10 fail under s. 9 but income from operations of o trading nature of falling under 10 of the Act;" 7.16 The Calcutta Bench of the Tribunal in the case of PFH Mall and Retail Management LM, Vs. ITO 110 ITD 337 had held that if the main intention of letting out is found to be exploitation of the immovable property by way of commercial activities and not a simple letting out per se, then the resulting income must be held as business income. Further, the Bombay High Court in the case of Mohiddin Hotels P. Ltd. 284 ITR 229 had held as under :- "It needs no…

SUN ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. ITO 14(3)(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ramlal Negi

…6) 72 taxmann.com 49. In this case it is held that the business of assessee is to lease its property and to earn rent then it should be taxed as business income and not as income from house property. In case of PFH Mall & Retail Management Ltd. v. /TO [2008] 110 ITD 337 (ITAT - Kol) it was held as under: "The mere fact that income is attached to immovable property cannot be sole criterion for assessment of such income as income from house property. It is necessary further to find out the primary object of the assessee while exploiting the property. If the main intention is simply letting the property or any port…

DCIT 1(2), MUMBAI vs. NAUTILUS TRADING & LEASING P.LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./5778/Mum/2013,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Dcit – 1(2) M/S. Nautilus Trading & Leasing Limited Room No.535, 5Th Floor 13, Meera Baug, Santacruz (W) Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai-400 054. Mumbai-400 020. Pan:Aaccn 3989 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से /Assessee By: None सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 29/11/2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement:06/01/2017 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" अिधिनयम क" क" धारा क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग" धारा अ"तग" अ"तग"त आदेश अ"तग" आदेश आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य, राजे"" सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार/ Per Rajendra A.M.- अनुसार Challenging The Order Dated 03/05/2013 Of The Cit(A)-7,Mumbai, The Assessing Officer(Ao) Has Filed The Present Appeal.Assessee-Company,Deriving Income From House Property, Filed Its Return Of Income On 18/10/2007, Declaring Loss Of Rs. 1.05 Crores.The Ao Completed The Assessment, Under Section 143 (3) Of The Act, On 4/12/2009, Determining Its Income At Rs.(-) 9.46 Lakhs.

…ecided to exploit the commercial property on Leave and license basis along with other amenities, that the nature of asset was commercial. He referred to the cases of Krishna Land Developers Private Ltd. (ITA/1057/Mum/2010),PFH Mall and Retail Management Ltd. (110 ITD 337), Global Tech Park Private Ltd. (119TTJ 421) and held that AO was not justified in assessing the income received by the assessee under the head income from house property. 5778/M/13-Nautilus Trading & Leasing Ltd. 5.During the course of hearing before us, the Departmental Representative (DR) supported the order of the AO and referred to the cas…

ITO 8(2)-4, MUMBAI vs. NISHA MALL MANAGEMENT CO. P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Jm & Shri R.C.Sharma, Am आमकय अऩीर सिं./Ita No.5882/Mum/2010 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2006-2007) Ito-8(2)(4), Mumbai Vs. M/S Nishta Mall Management Co. Pvt. Ltd., Knowledge House, Shyam Nagar, Off. Jogeshwari-Vikhroli Link Road, Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai-400060 स्थामी रेखा सिं./ जीआइआय सिं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaecm 0705 H (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. याजस्र् की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M. Rajan यनधावरयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Nishit Gandhi सुनर्ाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 5Th August, 2015 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 30-10-2015 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma, Am This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A), Mumbai, Dated 13-4-2010, For The Assessment Year 2006-07, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.143(3) Of The I.T.Act, Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Revenue :- “On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Holding That Business Centre Service Charges Of Rs.52,89,000/- Should Be Treated As “Business Income” Instead Of “Income From House Property” Without Appreciating The Facts Of The Case.”

…ant was a property manager rather than a passive owner. The property was treated as a business asset which was exploited by rendering commercial services in a systematic and organized 3 manner. Following decisions in PFH Mall & Retail Management Ltd. Vs. ITO[110 ITD 337] (Kol), Gesco Corporation Ltd. Vs. ACIT [31 SOT 131] (Mum), Harvindarpal Mehta (HUF) Vs. DCIT [122 TTJ 163] (Mum) it is held that the business centre receipts of Rs.52,89,000/- has to be treated as business income.” 4. Against the above order of CIT(A), the revenue is in appeal before us. 5. We have considered rival contentions and found from th…