Rayala Corporation Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT

386 ITR 500Supreme Court of India2016#1268 most cited

What is Rayala Corporation Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT authority for?

If an assessee company's main business object is to acquire and rent out properties, the rental income derived is taxable as 'Profits and gains of business or profession', rather than 'Income from house property', as the nature of the activity constitutes a business.

89

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Rayala Corporation Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT · 386 ITR 500 · SC 2016 · rental income classification · business income vs house property · section 22 · section 23 · section 24 · profits and gains of business or profession · main object of business · property letting business · nature of activity assessee

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 24Section 119Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 194-I
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 23(1)(a)annual valuesection 23(1)house property incomesection 24(a)maximum marginal rateprofits and gains of business or professionmiscellaneous applicationsection 22section 24section 23unexplained expenditure

Judgments citing Rayala Corporation Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle - 1(1), Pune vs. Balkrishnan Shanmugham Chettiar, Alias S. Balan, Pune

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

ITA 111/PUN/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No’S.110, 111 & 112/Pun/2021 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 The Asst. Commissioner Of M/S.Balkrishna Shanmugham Income Tax, Central Circle- Vs Chettiar Alias S. Balan, 1(1), Pune. . 1133/5, Nirankar F.C.Road, Shivaji Nagar, Pune – 411016. Pan: Aalpc 5158 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri M R Bhagwat – Ar Revenue By Shr Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 08/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 16/11/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: These Revenue’S Three Appeals For Ays 2015-16 To 2017-18 Arise Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)-11, Pune’S Separate Orders; All Dated 20.01.2021, Passed In Case Nos.Itba/Apl/S/250/2020-21/1029928824(1), Itba/Apl/S/ 250/2020-21/1029929977(1) & Itba/Apl/S/250/2020- 21/1029930177(1); Respectively, In Proceedings U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

Section 250Section 80Section 80ISection 80i

…sidering the objects of the company, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that such income was chargeable to tax under the head “Profits and gains from business or profession”. More recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rayala Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2016) 386 ITR 500 (SC) considered a situation in which the assessee was engaged the business of renting its properties. The assessee claimed such rental income as falling under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession”. The AO denied such a treatment. When the matter finally came up before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it considered both the judgments, n…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle - 1(1), Pune vs. Balkrishnan Shanmugham Chettiar, Alias S. Balan, Pune

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

ITA 110/PUN/2021[AALPC5158J]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Nov 2022

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No’S.110, 111 & 112/Pun/2021 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 The Asst. Commissioner Of M/S.Balkrishna Shanmugham Income Tax, Central Circle- Vs Chettiar Alias S. Balan, 1(1), Pune. . 1133/5, Nirankar F.C.Road, Shivaji Nagar, Pune – 411016. Pan: Aalpc 5158 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri M R Bhagwat – Ar Revenue By Shr Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 08/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 16/11/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: These Revenue’S Three Appeals For Ays 2015-16 To 2017-18 Arise Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)-11, Pune’S Separate Orders; All Dated 20.01.2021, Passed In Case Nos.Itba/Apl/S/250/2020-21/1029928824(1), Itba/Apl/S/ 250/2020-21/1029929977(1) & Itba/Apl/S/250/2020- 21/1029930177(1); Respectively, In Proceedings U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

Section 250Section 80Section 80ISection 80i

…sidering the objects of the company, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that such income was chargeable to tax under the head “Profits and gains from business or profession”. More recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rayala Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2016) 386 ITR 500 (SC) considered a situation in which the assessee was engaged the business of renting its properties. The assessee claimed such rental income as falling under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession”. The AO denied such a treatment. When the matter finally came up before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it considered both the judgments, n…

Vama Pvt Ltd(Formerly Known As Vama Department Store Pvt Ltd.), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Circle- 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 957/MUM/2020[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Prakash JotwaniFor Respondent: Uranda U. Matkari
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 69C

…erefore any income arising from exploiting its business asset would be chargeable to tax under the head Business Income only. Reliance is placed on Supreme court in Chennai Properties reported in 373 ITR 673 and Supreme Court in Rayala Corporation reported in 386 ITR 500 (iv) Without prejudice, in the event your Honour is of the opinion that the same should be taxed under the head 'Income from House Property', then we submit that the same should be computed at the actual rent received from VAIPL and VML, since it is much higher than the Municipal Ratable Value and the Assessee shall also be entitled to claim dedu…

Vama Pvt Ltd(Formerly Known As Vama Department Store Pvt Ltd.), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Circle- 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 956/MUM/2020[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Prakash JotwaniFor Respondent: Uranda U. Matkari
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 69C

…erefore any income arising from exploiting its business asset would be chargeable to tax under the head Business Income only. Reliance is placed on Supreme court in Chennai Properties reported in 373 ITR 673 and Supreme Court in Rayala Corporation reported in 386 ITR 500 (iv) Without prejudice, in the event your Honour is of the opinion that the same should be taxed under the head 'Income from House Property', then we submit that the same should be computed at the actual rent received from VAIPL and VML, since it is much higher than the Municipal Ratable Value and the Assessee shall also be entitled to claim dedu…

Vama Pvt Ltd(Formerly Known As Vama Department Store Pvt Ltd.), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Circle- 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 955/MUM/2020[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Prakash JotwaniFor Respondent: Uranda U. Matkari
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 69C

…erefore any income arising from exploiting its business asset would be chargeable to tax under the head Business Income only. Reliance is placed on Supreme court in Chennai Properties reported in 373 ITR 673 and Supreme Court in Rayala Corporation reported in 386 ITR 500 (iv) Without prejudice, in the event your Honour is of the opinion that the same should be taxed under the head 'Income from House Property', then we submit that the same should be computed at the actual rent received from VAIPL and VML, since it is much higher than the Municipal Ratable Value and the Assessee shall also be entitled to claim dedu…

Vama Pvt Ltd(Formerly Known As Vama Department Store Pvt Ltd.), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Circle- 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 954/MUM/2020[2003-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2022AY 2003-03

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Prakash JotwaniFor Respondent: Uranda U. Matkari
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 69C

…erefore any income arising from exploiting its business asset would be chargeable to tax under the head Business Income only. Reliance is placed on Supreme court in Chennai Properties reported in 373 ITR 673 and Supreme Court in Rayala Corporation reported in 386 ITR 500 (iv) Without prejudice, in the event your Honour is of the opinion that the same should be taxed under the head 'Income from House Property', then we submit that the same should be computed at the actual rent received from VAIPL and VML, since it is much higher than the Municipal Ratable Value and the Assessee shall also be entitled to claim dedu…

Vama Pvt Ltd(Formerly Known As Vama Department Store Pvt Ltd.), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Circle- 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 953/MUM/2020[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Prakash JotwaniFor Respondent: Uranda U. Matkari
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 69C

…erefore any income arising from exploiting its business asset would be chargeable to tax under the head Business Income only. Reliance is placed on Supreme court in Chennai Properties reported in 373 ITR 673 and Supreme Court in Rayala Corporation reported in 386 ITR 500 (iv) Without prejudice, in the event your Honour is of the opinion that the same should be taxed under the head 'Income from House Property', then we submit that the same should be computed at the actual rent received from VAIPL and VML, since it is much higher than the Municipal Ratable Value and the Assessee shall also be entitled to claim dedu…

Vama Pvt Ltd(Formerly Known As Vama Department Store Pvt Ltd.), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Circle- 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 952/MUM/2020[200-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2022

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Prakash JotwaniFor Respondent: Uranda U. Matkari
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 69C

…erefore any income arising from exploiting its business asset would be chargeable to tax under the head Business Income only. Reliance is placed on Supreme court in Chennai Properties reported in 373 ITR 673 and Supreme Court in Rayala Corporation reported in 386 ITR 500 (iv) Without prejudice, in the event your Honour is of the opinion that the same should be taxed under the head 'Income from House Property', then we submit that the same should be computed at the actual rent received from VAIPL and VML, since it is much higher than the Municipal Ratable Value and the Assessee shall also be entitled to claim dedu…

M/S. Embassy Knowledge Infrastructure Projects Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 2(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 982/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjay Kumar S.R., CIT –DR
Section 143(2)Section 24Section 3

…ome should be assessed under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession". (Page No. 92 and 94 of paper book) 2.1.6. The decision of the Supreme Court in Chennai Property's case was followed by the Supreme Court in Rayala Corporation Pvt Ltd Vs JCIT 386 ITR 500 as the facts were similar. (Page No. 96 and 97 of paper book) 2.1.7. The Supreme Court had an occasion to consider Chennai Properties and Rayala Corporation once again in Raj Dadarkar and Associates Vs ACIT 394 ITR 592. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under: (Page No. 106 of paper book) Wherever there is an income from leasing out of premis…

Wel Intertrade Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 1460/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Before Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year : 2011-12 Wel Intertrade Private Vs. Acit, Circle-27(2), Limited, New Delhi. 5,E Local Shopping Centre Masjid Moth, Greater Kailash Part 2, New Delhi – 110 048 Pan Aaacw10187F (Appellant) (Respondent) Asstt. Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Agarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Takyar, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…he impugned income from Business Centre is assessable as business income and not as income from house property. In support, reliance is placed on Chennai Properties & Investment Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 373 ITR 673 (SC); Rayala Corporation (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT (2016) 386 ITR 500 (SC); PCIT vs. Sri Bharathi Warehousing Corporation (2017) 392 ITR 160 (AP). 6.8.4 Likewise, it is submitted that the amount of Rs. 13,43,161/- received by way of reimbursement of expenses forms part of business receipt and had the same character i.e. as income from Business Centre. 6.8.5 It is also a grievance of the assessee that while comput…

The Jt. Comm of Income Tax (OSD) Cent .Cir-6(4), Mumbai vs. M/S D''Decor Properties LLP, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1743/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: This Extended Date, Accordingly, We Hold That There Is No Delay In Filing Of Appeal By The Revenue.

Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in misplacing his reliance upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Chennai Properties and Investment Ltd vs. CIT [373 ITR 673 SC] and Rayala Corporation Private Ltd vs. ACIT [386 ITR 500 SC] without appreciating that the facts of those cases are distinct from those of the instant case in so far as no income is offered in the instant case either under the head "Income from Business or Profession5' or under the head "Income from House Property". 3 M/s. D’décor Properties LLP The appellant prays that the order of the Commissioner…

Pegasus Properties P. Ltd., Pune vs. Dy CIT, CC-2(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 943/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Shri Dhramveer Singh
Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 22Section 23Section 23(4)

…come. So, additions made merely based on the nature of assets is incorrect and unjustified. 18. The Appellant wishes to submit that following the decision of Chennai Properties (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rayala Corporation (P.) Ltd. vs ACIT (2016) (386 ITR 500). has held that where the assessee is engaged in the business of leasing out its house properties to earn rent, income so earned as rent should be treated as 'business income' and not as 'income from house property'. A. The decision of the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Mumbai in Appellant's own case for AY 2013-14 and AY 2014-15 and AY 2…

ACIT, Circle- 52(1), New Delhi vs. Plaza Partners, New Delhi

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 4763/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 22Section 23(2)Section 24

…of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Karanpura Development Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal [1962] 44 ITR 362 (SC), Chennai Properties and Investment Ltd. Vs. CIT [2015] 373 ITR 673 (SC) and Rayala Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT [2016] 386 ITR 500 (SC) which are squarely applicable on the facts of the case reaffirming that income from letting out properties should be treated as “Business Income” and not as “Income from House Property”. 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the additions to the tune of Rs.4,91,30,635/- made by the…

Nisarg Realtors Pvt Ltd., Thane vs. ACIT 15 (2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7719/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Nisarg Realtors Pvt. Ltd. The Asst. Commissioner Of Office No. 2 & 3, Meezzanine Income–Tax Flr Vihang Vihar Circle 15(2)(1), Vs. 4Th Floor, 403, Aayakar Bhavan, Panchpakahadi, Thane West, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai–400 602 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.Aahca9368D Assessee By : Ms. Nishita Mandalaywala, Ca Revenue By : Shri C.T. Mathews, Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.04.2022

For Appellant: Ms. Nishita Mandalaywala, CAFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews, DR
Section 143(3)Section 194

…ct do not determine the characterization of income in the hands of the recipient. In the present case, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chennai Properties and Investment Ltd. vs. CIT 373 ITR 673 and Rayala Corporation Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT 386 ITR 500 covers the issue in favour of the assessee. Further Honourable Bombay High court in principal commissioner of income tax v. City centre mall nashik pvt. Ltd. [2020] 424 ITR 85 (bom) has also held that when main objects of assessee, over and above real estate development as main clause has renting of property there in and assessee is also providin…

ACIT (OSD) Corporate Circle 4(2), Chennai vs. Kka Buildtech Private Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1159/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1159/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Mr. Suresh Periasamy, JCITFor Respondent: Mr. R. Sricharan, C.A
Section 22

…ourt in the case of Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. v. CIT (supra), and strongly supported the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). The ld. Counsel for the assessee further relied on the following case laws: 1) Rayala Corporation (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT [2016] 386 ITR 500 (SC), 2) M/s. PSTS Heavy Lift and Shift Ltd., vs. DCIT in Tax Case Appeal Nos.2193 to 2195 of 2008 & 979 of 2009 (Mad.). 3) CIT v. Thiruvananthapuram v. Oberon Edifices & Estates (P.) Ltd. [2019] 103.taxmann.com 413 (Ker.) 4) PCIT, Pune v. Krome Planet Interiors (P.) Ltd. [2020] 423 ITR 62 (Bom.) 5) PCIT v. City Centre Mall Nashik (P.) Ltd. [202…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Hyderabad vs. Cache Properties Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 124/HYD/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Respondent: Sri Rohit Mujumdar, D.R
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 263

…nd electricity supply amenities and the rent has been received inclusive of all the facilities. He relied upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sultan Brothers (P.) Ltd., Vs. CIT [51 ITR 353] (SC), Rayala Corporation (P.) Ltd., Vs. ACIT [386 ITR 500] (SC) and Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd., Vs. CIT [373 ITR 673] (SC) to hold that where the intention of assessee is to commercially exploit the property and the business of the assessee is to let out the properties, the income has to be treated as business income of the assessee. Accordingly, he brought the income declared by the assess…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Premier Tyres Ltd

ITA/929/2009HC Kerala19 Jul 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

For Appellant: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXFor Respondent: M/S.PREMIER TYRES LTD

…Lakshmi Silk Mills Ltd. (1951 20 ITR 451), Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow v Vikram Cotton Mills Ltd. [(1988) 169 ITR 597)], Rayala Corporation Pvt. Ltd. v Asst. ITA Nos.757/2009 and batch cases 24 Commissioner of Income Tax (2016) 386 ITR 500(SC)], Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd. v Commissioner of Income Tax (2015) 373 ITR 673 (SC)], Commr. of Income Tax, Thiruvananthapuram v M/s Oberon Edifices and Estates (P) Ltd. (2019 KHC 279), CIT & Anr. v Mysore Wine Products Ltd. (2015) 373 ITR 102]. He concludes by arguing that the Tribunal for recording a finding in favour…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Premier Tyres Ltd

ITA/758/2009HC Kerala19 Jul 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

For Appellant: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXFor Respondent: M/S.PREMIER TYRES LTD

…Lakshmi Silk Mills Ltd. (1951 20 ITR 451), Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow v Vikram Cotton Mills Ltd. [(1988) 169 ITR 597)], Rayala Corporation Pvt. Ltd. v Asst. ITA Nos.757/2009 and batch cases 24 Commissioner of Income Tax (2016) 386 ITR 500(SC)], Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd. v Commissioner of Income Tax (2015) 373 ITR 673 (SC)], Commr. of Income Tax, Thiruvananthapuram v M/s Oberon Edifices and Estates (P) Ltd. (2019 KHC 279), CIT & Anr. v Mysore Wine Products Ltd. (2015) 373 ITR 102]. He concludes by arguing that the Tribunal for recording a finding in favour…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Ptl Enterprises Limited

ITA/483/2009HC Kerala19 Jul 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

For Appellant: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXFor Respondent: M/S.PREMIER TYRES LTD

…Lakshmi Silk Mills Ltd. (1951 20 ITR 451), Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow v Vikram Cotton Mills Ltd. [(1988) 169 ITR 597)], Rayala Corporation Pvt. Ltd. v Asst. ITA Nos.757/2009 and batch cases 24 Commissioner of Income Tax (2016) 386 ITR 500(SC)], Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd. v Commissioner of Income Tax (2015) 373 ITR 673 (SC)], Commr. of Income Tax, Thiruvananthapuram v M/s Oberon Edifices and Estates (P) Ltd. (2019 KHC 279), CIT & Anr. v Mysore Wine Products Ltd. (2015) 373 ITR 102]. He concludes by arguing that the Tribunal for recording a finding in favour…

Cache Properties Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 366/HYD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohana Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey, DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “A” : HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE) BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 366/HYD/2019 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Cache Properties Private DCIT, Circle-1(2), Limited, Vs HYDERABAD HYDERABAD [PAN: AABCC8341C] (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri P.Murali Mohana Rao, AR For Revenue : Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey, DR Date of Hearing : 19-01-2021 Date of Pronouncement : 04-02-2021 O R D E R PER BENCH : This assessee’s appeal for AY.2012-13 arises from the CIT(A)-1, Hyderabad’s order dated 11…