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

Great Heights Infratech Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT, Central- 2, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2393/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Sept 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Hiren Mehta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeet Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 132Section 22Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘C’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.Nos.2392 & 2393/Del/2018 Assessment Years 2013-2014 & 2014-2015 M/s. Great Heights Infratech Pvt. Ltd., C-134, Defence The Pr. CIT, Central-2, Colony, New Delhi – 110024 vs. New Delhi. PAN AAECG7642P Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Hiren Mehta, C.A. Revenue by : Shri Sanjeet Singh, CIT-D.R. Date of Hearing : 16.08.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 04.09.2018 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, JM Both the appeals by Assessee are directed against different Or…

Great Heights Infratech Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT, Central- 2, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2392/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Sept 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Hiren Mehta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeet Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 132Section 22Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘C’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.Nos.2392 & 2393/Del/2018 Assessment Years 2013-2014 & 2014-2015 M/s. Great Heights Infratech Pvt. Ltd., C-134, Defence The Pr. CIT, Central-2, Colony, New Delhi – 110024 vs. New Delhi. PAN AAECG7642P Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Hiren Mehta, C.A. Revenue by : Shri Sanjeet Singh, CIT-D.R. Date of Hearing : 16.08.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 04.09.2018 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, JM Both the appeals by Assessee are directed against different Or…

M/S Raj Landmark Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3-2, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 242/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Aug 2018AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Vishal Gupta (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Roshanta Meena (JCIT)
Section 23(1)(a)

…ny income derived from such stocks cannot be termed as ‘income from property’. In support of his contention, he has relied on the following decisions: (i) Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. Vs CIT 373 ITR 673. (ii) Rayala Corporation Private Ltd. (2016) 386 ITR 500 (SC). (iii) M/s Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. Vs. CIT (2015) 42 SCD 651, wherein it was held that where the assessee company engaged in the activity of letting out properties and the rental income received was shown as business income, the action of treating the rental income as income from house property in place of income from business…

Sane & Doshi Enterparises, Mumbai vs. Jt CIT 17(3), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 998/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri. S.C. TiwariFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin, DR
Section 143(3)Section 24Section 48

…ome would be business income. In support, Mr. Agarwal referred to the following two judgments: (i) Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd. v. CIT [2015] 373 ITR 673/231 Taxman 336/56 taxmann.com 456 (SC). (ii) Rayala Corporation (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2016] 386 ITR 500/243 Taxman 360/72 taxmann.com 149 (SC). 13. Before dealing with the respective contentions, we may state, in a summary form, scheme of the Act about the computation of the total income. Section 4 of the Act is the charging Section as per which the total income of an assessee, subject to statutory exemptions, is chargeable to tax. Section 14 of th…

Ambattur Infra Developers, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 7(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 689/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Aug 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.689 & 690/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 & 2014-15. Ambattur Infra Developers, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner No.86, E-2, Industrial Estate, Of Income Tax, Ambattur, Non Corporate Circle 7(1), Chennai 600 058. Chennai.

For Appellant: Ms. B. Jaisheila, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Sailendra Mamidi, PCIT
Section 194I

…siness/profession. Assessee also placed reliance on a judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Elnet Technologies Ltd, (2013) 89 DTR 442 and that of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rayala Corporation Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT, (2016) 386 ITR 500. ITA Nos.689 & 690/18 :- 4 -: 4. However, ld.CIT(A) was not appreciative of the above contentions. According to him, by virtue of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sultan Brothers Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT (1964) 51 ITR 353, East India Housing & Land Development Trust Limited, (1961) 42 ITR 49, Karnani Properties Limited vs. CIT, (197…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Ambattur Infra Developers, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 376/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.195 & 196/Chny/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2012-13. Ambattur Infra Developers, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No.86, E-2, Industrial Estate, Income Tax, Ambattur, Business Circle Xiii, Chennai 600 058 Chennai.

For Appellant: Shri. T. Banusekar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. N. Gopikrishna, IRS, JCIT
Section 194I

…ld income to be assessable under the head income from business. Reliance was also placed on the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd vs. CIT, (2015) 373 ITR 673 and Rayala Corporation Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT, (2016) 386 ITR 500. 7. Per contra, ld. Departmental Representative submitted that by virtue of the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of East India Housing & Land Development Trust Limited, (supra), ITA Nos.195,196, 376 & 377/16 :- 7 -: Karnani Properties Limited (supra), and S.G. Mercantile Corporation Private Limited (supra), even if main object of…

Ambattur Infra Developers, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 196/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.195 & 196/Chny/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2012-13. Ambattur Infra Developers, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No.86, E-2, Industrial Estate, Income Tax, Ambattur, Business Circle Xiii, Chennai 600 058 Chennai.

For Appellant: Shri. T. Banusekar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. N. Gopikrishna, IRS, JCIT
Section 194I

…ld income to be assessable under the head income from business. Reliance was also placed on the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd vs. CIT, (2015) 373 ITR 673 and Rayala Corporation Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT, (2016) 386 ITR 500. 7. Per contra, ld. Departmental Representative submitted that by virtue of the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of East India Housing & Land Development Trust Limited, (supra), ITA Nos.195,196, 376 & 377/16 :- 7 -: Karnani Properties Limited (supra), and S.G. Mercantile Corporation Private Limited (supra), even if main object of…

Ambattur Infra Developers, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 195/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.195 & 196/Chny/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2012-13. Ambattur Infra Developers, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No.86, E-2, Industrial Estate, Income Tax, Ambattur, Business Circle Xiii, Chennai 600 058 Chennai.

For Appellant: Shri. T. Banusekar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. N. Gopikrishna, IRS, JCIT
Section 194I

…ld income to be assessable under the head income from business. Reliance was also placed on the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd vs. CIT, (2015) 373 ITR 673 and Rayala Corporation Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT, (2016) 386 ITR 500. 7. Per contra, ld. Departmental Representative submitted that by virtue of the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of East India Housing & Land Development Trust Limited, (supra), ITA Nos.195,196, 376 & 377/16 :- 7 -: Karnani Properties Limited (supra), and S.G. Mercantile Corporation Private Limited (supra), even if main object of…

The Bharat Line Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 2(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1514/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singh: (A.Y : 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Mayur Kisnadwala &
Section 143(3)Section 234B

…and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in rejecting the additional ground raised by the Appellant holding that the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd 372 ITR 673 and Rayala Corporation Ltd. 386 ITR 500 are not applicable in the case of the Appellant. (2) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Profits and gains from lease/leave and license of the premises ought to be assessed as Business Income. (3) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of deduction of brokera…

ITO 2(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Madhu Snap Fastners Mfg Co. P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 5763/MUM/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Prakash JhunjhunwalaFor Respondent: Ms. Aarju Garodia

…which is the main business of the assessee, the income has to be assessed under the head income from business. In this context, he relied upon the following decisions:– CIT v/s NDR Warehousing Pvt. Ltd., 372 ITR 690; i) Rayala Corporation Pvt. Ltd. v/s ACIT, 386 ITR 500; and ii) Nutun Warehousing Co. Pvt. Ltd. v/s DCIT, 326 ITR 94. iii) 7. Further, the learned Authorised Representative submitted, though, the warehousing charges have been shown as business 5 Madhu Snap Fastners Mfg. Co. Pvt. Ltd. income for the past so many years, the Assessing Officer has never treated it as income from house property, except,…

Manek Lodge Properties, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 17(2), Mumbai

Appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3130/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3130/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Manek Lodge Properties Additional Commissioner Of Income-Tax 17(2) 13Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan Peninsula Business Park बनाम/ Tower ‘B’ M.K.Road Vs. Senapati Bapat Marg Mumbai-400 020 Lower Parel(W) Mumbai – 400 013 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabtm-7555-P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Nitesh Joshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: M.C.Omi Ningshen, Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 22Section 23(1)(a)Section 23(1)(c)

…come earned by the assessee was assessable as Business Income in terms of the ratio of judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Chennai Properties & Investments Limited Vs. CIT [2015 373 ITR 673] followed by Rayala Corporation Private Limited Vs. ACIT [2016 386 ITR 500], we take up the same first. The Ld. AR has stressed the point the since assessee’s only source of income was rental income and its objective was to earn rental income in business-like manner and therefore, the same was assessable as Business Income considering the ratio of cited judgment. Per contra, Ld. DR vehemently opposed the same on the gro…

Bharat Tiles & Marble P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 2(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 438/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Bharat Tiles & Dy. Comm. Of Income Marble Pvt. Ltd., Tax, Circle 2(1), 4/27, Kamal Mansion, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Arthur Bunder Road, Mumbai Colaba, Mumbai-400 005 Pan: Aaacb1727A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ishwar Prakash Rathi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari, Sr. D.R
Section 143(2)

…nses incurred in relation to motor car also needs to be allowed 8 M/s. Bharat Tiles & Marble Pvt. Ltd. against business receipts. In this regard, he relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rayala Corporation Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (2016) 386 ITR 500 (SC) and also the decision of ITAT Mumbai SMC Bench in the case of Distinct Developers Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.6943/M/2016 dated 03.05.17. 11. On the other hand, the Ld. D.R. strongly supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. D.R. further submitted that merely because the assessee considered the rental receipts under the head “Income from busine…

Rajendra R. Chaturvedi, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 2(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5546/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Rajendra R. Chaturvedi, The Dcit, 4Th Floor, Shreepati Arcade, Central Circle-2(3), बनाम/ Premises No.1 & 2, Room No.803, 8Th Floor, Vs. August Kranti Marg, Old C.G.O. Annx. Bldg. Nana Chowk, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400036 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aczpc5041Q

Section 143(2)Section 24

…siness, it has rightly treated compensation received towards providing amenities under the head "Income from business". In support of his argument, the Ld.AR relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rayala Corporation Ltd vs ACIT 2016) 386 ITR 500 (SC) and also ITAT Mumbai Bench decision in the case of Kavita Marketing Pvt Ltd vs ITO (2016) 47 CHH 228 (Mum Trib). 7. The Ld.DR, on the other hand, supported the orders of authorities below and submitted that the issue has been already considered by the ITAT, in assessee's own case in the earlier years and observed that the receipts towards am…

Oberoi Buildings & Investments Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-5, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee (Ground No

ITA 1205/KOL/2014[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Oct 2017AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri A. T Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1204/Kol/2014 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08 Vs. A.C.I.T, Circle – 5, Kolkata Oberoi Investments Pvt. Ltd. 4, Mangoe Lane, 6Th Floor, Kolkata – 700 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaco 2859E (Assessee) .. (Respondent) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1205/Kol/2014 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08 Oberoi Buildings & Investments Vs. A.C.I.T, Circle – 5, Kolkata Pvt. Ltd. 4, Mangoe Lane, 6Th Floor, Kolkata – 700 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaco 2860 R (Assessee) .. (Respondent) Assesseeby : Shri A. K. Gupta, Fca Respondent By :Shri Kalyannath, Acit(Dr) सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 07/09/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04/10/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee(Group Companies` Appeals), Pertaining To Assessment Year 2007-08, In Respect Of M/S Oberoi Investments Pvt. Ltd. Andm/S Oberoi Buildings & Investments Pvt. Ltd., Are Directed Against The Orders Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Vi, Which Oberoi Investments Pvt. Ltd. & Oberoi Buildings & Investments Pvt. Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Gupta, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Kalyannath, ACIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…’s income disclosing the same under the head income from business has to be upheld and it cannot be treated as income from house property. This proposition of law has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Royala Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2016) 386 ITR 500 (SC). Taking into consideration the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the coordinate Bench of this Tribunal “B” Bench, Kolkata in the case of the sister concern of the assessee i.e. Bombay Plaza Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, ITA No. 1641 & 1203/Kol/2014 for AYs 2006-07 and 2007-08 was pleased to uphold the assessee’s claim that the income from…

Oberoi Investments Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT Cir-5, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee (Ground No

ITA 1204/KOL/2014[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Oct 2017AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri A. T Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1204/Kol/2014 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08 Vs. A.C.I.T, Circle – 5, Kolkata Oberoi Investments Pvt. Ltd. 4, Mangoe Lane, 6Th Floor, Kolkata – 700 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaco 2859E (Assessee) .. (Respondent) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1205/Kol/2014 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08 Oberoi Buildings & Investments Vs. A.C.I.T, Circle – 5, Kolkata Pvt. Ltd. 4, Mangoe Lane, 6Th Floor, Kolkata – 700 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaco 2860 R (Assessee) .. (Respondent) Assesseeby : Shri A. K. Gupta, Fca Respondent By :Shri Kalyannath, Acit(Dr) सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 07/09/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04/10/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee(Group Companies` Appeals), Pertaining To Assessment Year 2007-08, In Respect Of M/S Oberoi Investments Pvt. Ltd. Andm/S Oberoi Buildings & Investments Pvt. Ltd., Are Directed Against The Orders Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Vi, Which Oberoi Investments Pvt. Ltd. & Oberoi Buildings & Investments Pvt. Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Gupta, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Kalyannath, ACIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…’s income disclosing the same under the head income from business has to be upheld and it cannot be treated as income from house property. This proposition of law has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Royala Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2016) 386 ITR 500 (SC). Taking into consideration the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the coordinate Bench of this Tribunal “B” Bench, Kolkata in the case of the sister concern of the assessee i.e. Bombay Plaza Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, ITA No. 1641 & 1203/Kol/2014 for AYs 2006-07 and 2007-08 was pleased to uphold the assessee’s claim that the income from…

Oberoi Buildings & Investments Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle-5, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1640/KOL/2014[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Jul 2017AY 2006-2007

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And डॉ. अजु"न लाल सैनी, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 14ASection 22

…assessee disclosing the same under the head income from business has to be upheld and it cannot be treated as income from house property. This proposition of law has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Royala Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2016) 386 ITR 500 (SC). Taking into consideration the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the coordinate Bench of this Tribunal “B” Bench, Kolkata in the case of the sister concern of the assessee i.e. Bombay Plaza Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, ITA No. 1641 & 1203/Kol/2014 for AYs 2006-07 and 2007-08 was pleased to uphold the assessee’s claim that the income from…

Distinct Developers P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 6(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6943/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 May 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)

…Hon'ble Supreme Court, the learned AR submitted that the rental income received by it should be assessed under the head “income from business” :- (a) Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd. (2015) 373 ITR 673 (b) Rayala Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2016) 386 ITR 500 4. Learned AR further submitted that an identical issue was considered by the Coordinate Bench in the case of ACIT Vs. M/s. Stellar Developer Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 68 SOT 34 and the same has been decided in favour of the assessee. Learned AR submitted that the assessee does not have any other income except rental income. Learned AR also submitted tha…

ITO 3(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Bajaj Capital Ventures P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee as well as Revenue are partly allowed, as above

ITA 789/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negibajaj Capital Ventures Pvt. Ltd., 106/107, 10Th Floor, Bajaj Bhavan, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, 226 Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 Pan: Aaaca 3565F ...... Appellant Vs. Dy.Cit – 3(1)(1), Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 .... Respondent Dy.Cit – 3(1)(1), Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 .... Appellant

For Appellant: Shri V. MohanFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Singla
Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S.PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Bajaj Capital Ventures Pvt. Ltd., 106/107, 10th Floor, Bajaj Bhavan, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, 226 Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 PAN: AAACA 3565F ...... Appellant Vs. Dy.CIT – 3(1)(1), Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 .... Respondent Dy.CIT – 3(1)(1), Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 .... Appellant Vs. Bajaj Capital Ventures Pvt. Ltd., 106/107, 10th Floor, Bajaj Bhavan, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, 226 Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 PAN: AAACA 3565F ..... Respondent Ass…

Bajaj Capital Ventures P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 3(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee as well as Revenue are partly allowed, as above

ITA 1257/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negibajaj Capital Ventures Pvt. Ltd., 106/107, 10Th Floor, Bajaj Bhavan, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, 226 Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 Pan: Aaaca 3565F ...... Appellant Vs. Dy.Cit – 3(1)(1), Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 .... Respondent Dy.Cit – 3(1)(1), Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 .... Appellant

For Appellant: Shri V. MohanFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Singla
Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S.PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Bajaj Capital Ventures Pvt. Ltd., 106/107, 10th Floor, Bajaj Bhavan, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, 226 Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 PAN: AAACA 3565F ...... Appellant Vs. Dy.CIT – 3(1)(1), Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 .... Respondent Dy.CIT – 3(1)(1), Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 .... Appellant Vs. Bajaj Capital Ventures Pvt. Ltd., 106/107, 10th Floor, Bajaj Bhavan, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, 226 Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 PAN: AAACA 3565F ..... Respondent Ass…

Electronic & Engineering Co., Mumbai vs. ACIT 24(1), Erstwhile JCIT-20(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are treated as allowed, for statistical purposes

ITA 6010/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234Section 271Section 50C

…house property” or “Income from business” and on this issue there has been significant legal development because of two Supreme Court judgments in the case of Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd vs CIT 373 ITR 673 (SC) and Rayala Corporation Pvt Ltd vs ACIT 386 ITR 500 (SC). In view of these facts, it was requested that these appeals should be sent back to the file of the CIT(A) to be decided on merits, that too, after considering the aforesaid judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which have direct bearing on the issues involved. It was also submitted by the Ld. Counsel that full co-operation shall be extende…