S.G. Mercantile Corporation P. Ltd. v. CIT, Calcutta

83 ITR 700Supreme Court of India1972#820 most cited

What is S.G. Mercantile Corporation P. Ltd. v. CIT, Calcutta authority for?

Income from sources not falling under any other head of income under Section 14 of the Income Tax Act is taxed under the residuary head 'income from other sources'. If income cannot be taxed under Section 45 (capital gains), it cannot be taxed at all.

126

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2005 to 2025.

Also referred to as

S.G. Mercantile Corporation v. CIT · Section 14 · income from other sources · residuary head of income · Section 45 · capital gains · taxing income

Sections most often in play

Section 1961Section 14ASection 143(3)Section 194-ISection 2(13)Section 24Section 37(1)Section 119

Issues it is cited on

section 57profits and gains of business or professionsection 32section 56income from other sourcessection 36(1)section 14aprevious yearsection 143(2)transfercompanybusiness

Judgments citing S.G. Mercantile Corporation P. Ltd. v. CIT, Calcutta

Shri Dinesh Chand Tyagi, Muzaffarnagar vs. ITO, Muzaffarnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5898/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kantasstt. Year: 2011-12 Shri Dinesh Chand Tyagi, The Income Tax Officer, 720/1, Indira Colony, Gali No.4, Ward 1 (1), Roorkee Road, Muzaffar Nagar, Muzaffar Nagar, Up Up Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Pratiyush Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri C.P. Singh, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 28Section 44ASection 56

…income can appropriately fall under Section 28 as business income or any other specific head of income no resort can be made to section 56 as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of S.G. Mercantile Corporation (P) Ltd v. CIT reported as (1972) 83 ITR 700 (SC). 3. That the learned assessing officer erred in law in charging interest under section 234A and 2348 of the Act.” 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income on 31/03/2012 declaring taxable income of Rs. 5,01, 250/-and agriculture income of Rs. 60,000/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s 14…

The ITO, Ward-1(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Adani Power Rajasthan Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue, as well as Cross Objection filed by Assessee both, are dismissed

ITA 1710/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1710/Ahd/2016 With C.O. 120/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 Ito, M/S. Adani Power Rajasthan Ltd., Ward-1(1), Vs. Adani House, Ahmedabad. Nr. Mithakhali Six Road, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380002. Pan: Aagca9379P

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar & Parin
Section 234BSection 244ASection 271(1)(c)Section 56

…d "Income from other sources" only if it does not fall under any other head of income as provided in s. 14 of the Act. The head "Income from other sources" is a residuary head of income. See S.G. Mercantile Corporation (P) Ltd. vs. CIT1972 CTR (SC) 8 : (1972) 83 ITR 700 (SC) and CIT vs. Govinda Choudhury & Sons (1994) 116 CTR (SC) 61 : (1993) 203 ITR 881 (SC). 5.2 It is clear upon a perusal of the facts as found by the authorities below that the funds in the form of share capital were infused for a specific purpose of acquiring land and the development of infrastructure. Therefore, the interest earned on funds pr…

ADIT, New Delhi vs. Mr. Sudhir Choudhary, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed

ITA 2013/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantasstt. Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Smt. Jyoti Narula, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…of the Assessing Officer relying on decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in following cases : 1. CIT vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) [2009] 182 Taxman 368 (SC)/[2009] 315 ITR 1 (SC)/{2009} 224 CTR 522 (SC) 2. CIT vs. Govinda Choudhury & Sons [1994] 74 Taxman 331 (SC)/[1993] 203 ITR 881 (SC)/[1994] 116 CTR 61 (SC) 3 5. On the contrary, Ld. Counsel of the assessee filed a paper book containing pages 1 to 63. She referred to page 21 of the paper book containing details of the total compensation received including interest and the treatment of the same given by the assessee in assessment year 2012-13. The Ld. Counsel also referred…

The Income Tax Officer, Amritsar vs. Sh. Shiv Raj Singh Bawa, Amritsar

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed and the assessee’s CO, dismissed

ITA 407/ASR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 407/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)For Respondent: Sh. Tarun Bansal (Adv.)
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

…Mills Supply Agency Ltd. [1975] 100 ITR 706 (SC). The reference by the ld. Departmental Representative (DR), Sh. Charan Dass, to decisions in Karanpura Development Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1962] 44 ITR 362 (SC) and S.G. Mercantile Corporation (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1972] 83 ITR 700 (SC) in this regard is also apposite. The facts of all these cases are pertinent. In Karanpura Development Co. Ltd. (supra), for instance, the appellant company acquiring coal mining leases, developing them as coal fields and then sub-leasing them to collieries and other companies, acquired leases for a term of 999 years. The same were sub-let for…

Income Tax Officer vs. M/S. Nagpal Landmarks, Pune

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 103/PUN/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Anil Chaturvedi Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri P.D. Kudva
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…(CIT vs .Govinda Choudhury & Sons 1993 203 ITR 881(SC)). ii) Where an income can appropriately fall under section 28 as business income, or any other specific head of income, no resort can be made to section 56.[S.G. Mercantile Corporation P. Ltd. V CIT(1972) 83 ITR 700 4 A.Y.2010-11 (SC)]. 1.12 In light of the above submissions we plead that income is correctly declared under the head Profits & Gains of Business and that interest income of Rs.77,12,931 is not separately chargeable as IFOS." “2.0 Ground of Appeal No. 2 The AO erred in not allowing corresponding interest expenses of Rs.77,12,931 incurred again…

The ITO, Ward-1(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Adani Power Rajasthan Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, cross objection of the assessee on this score stands allowed

ITA 1430/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Jan 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1430/Ahd/2015 With Cross Objection No. 114/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12)

For Appellant: Parin Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr. D.R
Section 56

…d "Income from other sources" only if it does not fall under any other head of income as provided in s. 14 of the Act. The head "Income from other sources" is a residuary head of income. See S.G. Mercantile Corporation (P) Ltd. vs. CIT1972 CTR (SC) 8 : (1972) 83 ITR 700 (SC) and CIT vs. Govinda Choudhury & Sons (1994) 116 CTR (SC) 61 : (1993) 203 ITR 881 (SC). 5.2 It is clear upon a perusal of the facts as found by the authorities below that the funds in the form of share capital were infused for a specific purpose of acquiring land and the development of infrastructure. Therefore, the interest earned on funds p…

M/S. Jaipur Tax Weaving Park Ltd., Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 31/JPR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Dec 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Her.”

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Khandelwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri J. C. Kulhari (JCIT)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES-A, JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 31/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2009-10 cuke M/s Jaipur Texweaving Park Ltd., Income Tax Officer, Vs. 37-38, Yarnwala Chambers, Ward-7 (2) Ramganj Bazar, Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABCJ6286B vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Mukesh Khandelwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Re…

M/S. Mehta Construction Company, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee i

ITA 6724/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Narendra Chodhary

For Appellant: Mrs. Ranojain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR
Section 143

…t amount was received by the assessee on account of delay in payment of money due to it by its contractee. This issue is no longer res integra. The money due to it by its contractee. This Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Govinda Choudhary & Songs, 203 ITR 881 held as follows “………………. If the amounts are not paid at the proper time and interest is awarded or paid for such delay, such interest is only an accretion to the assessee’s receipts from the contracts. It is obviously attributable and incidental to the business carried on by it. It would not be correct to say, as the Tribunal has held, that this…

M/S Mehta Construction Company, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee i

ITA 6857/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Narendra Chodhary

For Appellant: Mrs. Ranojain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR
Section 143

…t amount was received by the assessee on account of delay in payment of money due to it by its contractee. This issue is no longer res integra. The money due to it by its contractee. This Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Govinda Choudhary & Songs, 203 ITR 881 held as follows “………………. If the amounts are not paid at the proper time and interest is awarded or paid for such delay, such interest is only an accretion to the assessee’s receipts from the contracts. It is obviously attributable and incidental to the business carried on by it. It would not be correct to say, as the Tribunal has held, that this…

DCIT, Cir-10(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Maa Amba Towers Ltd., Kolkata

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1381/KOL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganeshassessment Year :2012-13

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 68

…e assessee can therefore fall within the definition of "business" in Section 2 (13) of the I T Act. 5.6 In the impugned order in support of his conclusions the AO heavily relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of S.G. Mercantile Corpn Vs CIT (83 ITR 700). On examination of relevant decision, I however find that the ratio laid down in that decision in fact advances the case of the assessee rather than furthering the case of the Revenue. In that case the Supreme Court ultimately held that the assessee who was engaged in the business of sub-leasing of the shops, the income was assessable under Secti…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Io Creations, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the department stands

ITA 2762/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2008-09 Income Tax Officer, M/S I.O. Creations, Ward 54(2), 198, Jeevan Nagar Ashram, Room No. 1601, 16Th Floor, Vs New Delhi-110014 Civic Centre, E-2 Block, New Delhi. Appellant Respondent Department By: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr Assessee By : Shri Sandeep Sapra, Adv. Date Of Hearing : 18.06.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.09.2018

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Sapra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 194ASection 250

…assessee’s business is sale and purchase of properties and, thus, the assessee’s main source of income is business and not from income from other sources. The Hon’ble Apex Court has held in the case of C.I.T. vs Govidaa Choudhary and Sons reported in (1993) 203 ITR 881 (SC) that Section 56 of the Act relating to income from other sources is a residuary one and it is only where an income does not fall under any of the other regular sources of income, there should be need for invoking section 56. The Hon’ble Apex Court further held that where a person has only one source of income and that is business, there cou…

Jorabat Shillong Expressway Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be partly allowed

ITA 3667/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3667/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) बिधम/ Jorabat Shillong Expressway Ito 14(2)(1) Ltd. (Erstwhile Income Tax Vs. The Il&Fs Financial Center, Officer-10(1)(4) Mumbai Room No. 457, 4Th Floor, Plot No. C-22, G Block, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhavan, Maharshi Bandra(E), Mumbai-400051. Karve Road, Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccj3827H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Dilip V. Lakhani (Ar) Revenue By: Shri Suman Kumar (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20.06.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12.09.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 09.02.2016 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2011-12. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Confirming That The Interest Income Of Rs.31,13,010/- The Appellant Prays That The Interest Income Earned By The Appellant Amounting To

For Appellant: Shri Dilip V. Lakhani (AR)For Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar (DR)
Section 234B

…xed under the head "income from other sources" only if it does not fall under any other head of income as provided in section 14 of the Act. The head "income from other sources" is a residuary head of income. See S.G. Mercantile Corpn. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1972] 83 ITR 700 (SC) and CIT v. Govinda Choudhury & Sons [1993] 203 ITR 881 (SC). 5.2 It is clear upon a perusal of the facts as found by the authorities below that the funds in the form of share capital were infused for a specific purpose of acquiring land and the development of infrastructure. Therefore, the interest earned on funds primarily brought for infusi…

Mjsj Coal Limited, Angul vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Bhubaneswar

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 107/CTK/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack31 Aug 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.429/Ctk/2016, 68/Ctk/2017 & 107/Ctk/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / A.Ys :2011-2012, 2013-2014 & 2014-2015) Mjsj Coal Limited, Vs. Ito, Ward-2, Dhenkanal / At/Po:Balanda, Talcher, Ito, Ward-1(3), Bhubaneswar Dist-Angul, Odisha-759116 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagcm 1095 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri K.K.Bal, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Dutta, Citdr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 28/08/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 31/08/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Cit(A)-1&3, Bhubaneswar, Dated 28.04.2016, 04.11.2016 & 04.12.2017 Passed In I.T.Appeal Nos.0120/2014-15, 0472/15-16 & 0254/16-17, For The Assessment Years 2011-2012, 2013-2014 & 2014- 2015. 2. Since Issues The Above Appeals Are Common, Therefore, They Are Heard Together & Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. For The Sake Of Convenience We Shall Take Up Assessee’S Appeal I.E. Ita No.429/Ctk/2016 For Assessment Year 2011-2012 & The Grounds & Facts Mentioned Therein, Wherein The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- Ground Of Appeal • We Are Not Agreeing With The Computation Of Tax On Interest Earn By Company Made By Assessing Officer. • During The Assessment, The Cases We Submitted To Justify Our Claim (As Mentioned In Statement Of Facts) Has Not Been Paid Any Emphasis For Deciding The Case By The A.0 & Cit (Appeal- 3),Bhubaneswar. On The Other Hand The A.0 & Cit (Appeal-3) Finally Imposed His Decision Based On The Facts Of Alkali Tuticorin Chem. & Fertilizers Ltd. In Which It Has Earned Interest On The Funds, Were Borrowed Funds Only

For Appellant: Shri K.K.Bal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, CITDR

…um Ltd. v. ITO (2009) 315 ITR 255 (Del) 1 l-Mazagaon Dock Ltd v. CIT/Excess Profits Tax (1958) 34 ITR 368 (SC), 12- Narain Swadeshi Weaving Mills v. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax (1954) 26 ITR 765 (SC) 13- S.G. Mercantile Corporation P. Ltd v. CIT (1972) 83 ITR 700 (SC). • The imposed demand is prejudicial and offers unnecessary hardship on us, since our affairs is still lying on the verge of development only, we do not have commenced yet. • We have the valid reason for taking that interest earned (Rs 91,56,600.00 and TDS of Rs 12,72,540.00,Tax Demand of Rs 22,33,130.00) is for capitalization in our books…

Mjsj Coal Limited, Angul vs. ITO, Ward-2, Dhenkanal

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 429/CTK/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack31 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.429/Ctk/2016, 68/Ctk/2017 & 107/Ctk/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / A.Ys :2011-2012, 2013-2014 & 2014-2015) Mjsj Coal Limited, Vs. Ito, Ward-2, Dhenkanal / At/Po:Balanda, Talcher, Ito, Ward-1(3), Bhubaneswar Dist-Angul, Odisha-759116 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagcm 1095 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri K.K.Bal, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Dutta, Citdr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 28/08/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 31/08/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Cit(A)-1&3, Bhubaneswar, Dated 28.04.2016, 04.11.2016 & 04.12.2017 Passed In I.T.Appeal Nos.0120/2014-15, 0472/15-16 & 0254/16-17, For The Assessment Years 2011-2012, 2013-2014 & 2014- 2015. 2. Since Issues The Above Appeals Are Common, Therefore, They Are Heard Together & Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. For The Sake Of Convenience We Shall Take Up Assessee’S Appeal I.E. Ita No.429/Ctk/2016 For Assessment Year 2011-2012 & The Grounds & Facts Mentioned Therein, Wherein The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- Ground Of Appeal • We Are Not Agreeing With The Computation Of Tax On Interest Earn By Company Made By Assessing Officer. • During The Assessment, The Cases We Submitted To Justify Our Claim (As Mentioned In Statement Of Facts) Has Not Been Paid Any Emphasis For Deciding The Case By The A.0 & Cit (Appeal- 3),Bhubaneswar. On The Other Hand The A.0 & Cit (Appeal-3) Finally Imposed His Decision Based On The Facts Of Alkali Tuticorin Chem. & Fertilizers Ltd. In Which It Has Earned Interest On The Funds, Were Borrowed Funds Only

For Appellant: Shri K.K.Bal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, CITDR

…um Ltd. v. ITO (2009) 315 ITR 255 (Del) 1 l-Mazagaon Dock Ltd v. CIT/Excess Profits Tax (1958) 34 ITR 368 (SC), 12- Narain Swadeshi Weaving Mills v. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax (1954) 26 ITR 765 (SC) 13- S.G. Mercantile Corporation P. Ltd v. CIT (1972) 83 ITR 700 (SC). • The imposed demand is prejudicial and offers unnecessary hardship on us, since our affairs is still lying on the verge of development only, we do not have commenced yet. • We have the valid reason for taking that interest earned (Rs 91,56,600.00 and TDS of Rs 12,72,540.00,Tax Demand of Rs 22,33,130.00) is for capitalization in our books…

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

…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, (1971) 82 ITR 547 and S.G. Mercantile Corporation Private Limited vs. CIT, (1972) 83 ITR 700, even if the object of an assessee was to promote and develop a market on his landed property, income therefrom would be assessable under the head ‘’income from house property’’. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shambhu Investments P. Ltd vs. CIT, (2003) 263 ITR 143. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax…

M/S Jaypee Powergrid Ltd.M, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5489/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Anil Chopra, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, Sr. DR

…ITA No. 5489/Del/2013 Assessment year 2009-10 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘D’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, HON’BLE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2009-10 Jaypee Powergrid Ltd., ITO, 63, JA House, Basant Lok, Ward 4(1), vs Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. New Delhi. (PAN: AABCJ8054F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Anil Chopra, FCA Shri V.K. Garg, Adv. Shri Parveen Kumar, FCA Respondent by : Shri Amit Jain, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 26.04.2018 Date of Pronouncement: 24.07.2018 ORDER PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, J.M. This appeal ha…

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

…him, by virtue of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of East India Housing & Land Development Trust Limited, (1961) 42 ITR 49, Karnani Properties Limited vs. CIT, (1971) 82 ITR 547 and S.G. Mercantile Corporation Private Limited vs. CIT, (1972) 83 ITR 700, even if the object of an assessee was to promote and develop a market on his landed property, income therefrom would be assessable under the head ‘’income from house property’’. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shambhu Investments P. Ltd vs. CIT, (2003) 263 ITR 143. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A…

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

…him, by virtue of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of East India Housing & Land Development Trust Limited, (1961) 42 ITR 49, Karnani Properties Limited vs. CIT, (1971) 82 ITR 547 and S.G. Mercantile Corporation Private Limited vs. CIT, (1972) 83 ITR 700, even if the object of an assessee was to promote and develop a market on his landed property, income therefrom would be assessable under the head ‘’income from house property’’. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shambhu Investments P. Ltd vs. CIT, (2003) 263 ITR 143. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A…

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

…him, by virtue of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of East India Housing & Land Development Trust Limited, (1961) 42 ITR 49, Karnani Properties Limited vs. CIT, (1971) 82 ITR 547 and S.G. Mercantile Corporation Private Limited vs. CIT, (1972) 83 ITR 700, even if the object of an assessee was to promote and develop a market on his landed property, income therefrom would be assessable under the head ‘’income from house property’’. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shambhu Investments P. Ltd vs. CIT, (2003) 263 ITR 143. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A…

ITO, New Delhi vs. Sh. Rajiv Kholi, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 4379/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sh. Rajiv Kholi, Ward-31(4), Room No. 185A, 89, Jor Bagh, New Delhi C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi Pan :Aaepk2957L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Atiq Ahmed, Sr.Dr Respondent By Sh. Y.K. Kapoor, Adv. Date Of Hearing 21.05.2018/29.06.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 29.06.2018

Section 143(2)Section 3

…,72,751/-in the AY 1997-98 10 & amount of ``3,33,59,343/- in the AY 1998-99 awarded by the arbitrator and endorsed by Bombay High Court as a revenue receipt, following the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Govinda Choudhary & Sons reported in 203 ITR 881(SC); Rockwell Engineering Co. Ltd. 180 ITR 277 (Kerala), Abbasbhoy A. Dehgamwalla 195 ITR 681 (Bom) and Bishambarnath Swaroop Narain 119 ITR 681 (All). On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) ,however, allowed the claim of the assessee following the decision of the ITAT, Cuttuck Bench, Cuttuck in 10 ITA nos.4168/Del/2000 & 3443/Del./2001 I.T.A. No.169/90 in th…