Shambhu Investment (P) Ltd. v. CIT

National Stock Exchange of India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Cir-7(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result ground no.1 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed and grounds no

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.730 & 731/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18) National Stock Exchange Vs. Dcit, Circle 7(1)(1) Of India Limited Room No. 126, 1 St Floor, Exchange Plaza, Bandra Aaykar Bhavan, Kurla Complex, Bandra M.K. Road, East, Mumbai – 400051 Churchgate -400 020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacn1797L Appellant .. Respondent

…pects of this treatment, but the CIT(A) dismissed the arguments of the assessee by making a very brief observation to the effect that since the Assessing officer has based his conclusions on Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Shambhu Investments (263 ITR 143). the action of the Assessing Officer is sustained. The assessee is not satisfied and is in further appeal before us. Para 100. Having heard the rival contentions and having perused the material on record, we find that the CIT(A) has indeed been very superficial in his approach and has simply brushed aside contentions of the assessee. The issue i…

Saurashtra Trust, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

…the leased out premises/tenant have nexus to the enjoyment of the property, then it can be included in the income from house property as held by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court, which has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shambu Investments Vs. CIT (263 ITR 143 (SC) and Raj Dadarkar Associates Vs. ACIT CA 65 to 6460 of 2017 (SC) and by Tribunal in assessee’s own case ITA. No. 6642/Mum/2011 for AY. 2008-09 at Para 11 to 15, wherein the Tribunal was considering whether the assessee was entitled to deduction us/ 24(a) of the Act or not on the composite rent income comprising of income from renting out of p…

Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 7(2), Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2010-11

…lear that the primary intention of the assessee is to earn rent from letting out the property and the ancillary services provided are attached to such letting out of the property. Therefore relying on the decision in the case of Shambu Investments Ltd vs. CIT 263 ITR 143(SC), this ground of appeal is dismissed.” 10. We have perused the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). Undisputedly assessee has taken loan of Rs.411.9 crore against which claimed interest expenses of Rs.59.91 crore but at the same time the assessee has also given loans and advances amounting to Rs.208.52 crores to various parties. The AO allowed the…

Samir Shantilal Somaiya, Mumbai vs. ITO 2(3)(3), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhsamir Shantilal Somaiya Vs. Ito-2(3)(3) Fazalbhoy Building, 45- Aayakar Bhavan, 47, M.G. Road, For, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400001 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Amups9442C Appellant .. Respondent

…imed deduction is also allowable, therefore, we affirm the stand of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).” 8. Even otherwise, then issue is absolutely covered by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shambhu investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT 263 ITR 143 (SC). Accordingly, we accept the income declared by assessee under the head income from other sources as against assessed by Assessing Officer under the head income from house property. Hence, we direct the Assessing Officer to consider this income under the head income from house property and not income from other sources. The orders of lower au…

Nasser S Al Hajri Corporation Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Nasser S Al Hajri Acit, Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Circle – 10(3)(1) & Unit No.2, 2Nd Floor, Cit(A)-17, A-Wing Timesquare, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Andheri Kurla Road, M.K. Road, Opp. Mittal Estate, Mumbai - 400020 Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400 059 Pan: Aadcn 7852M (Appellant) (Respondent)

…asic charges of rent. The assessee has made bifurcation of the receipt from the, occupiers of the shops/stalls as rent and service charges. As rightly held by the Assessing Officer, decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shambu Investment Pvt. Ltd., 263 ITR 143 will apply. The assessee has not established that 6 M/s. Nasser S Al Hajri Corporation Pvt. Ltd he was engaged in any systematic or organized activity of providing service to the occupiers of the shops/stalls so as to constitute the receipts from them as business income. In our opinion, the assessee received income by letting out shops/stalls; an…

M/S Quality Apparel Exporters Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 11(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the Ground No

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 2352 & 2353/Mum/2019 (A.Y: 2012-13 & 2013-14) M/S. Quality Apparel Vs. Ito -Ward -11(1)(1) Exports Pvt Ltd, Room No. 201, Unit No.4, Wicel Bldg, 2Ndfloor,Aayakar Seepz, Midc, Moral, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai Mumbai – 400020 400093 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacq1711F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Mr.T.Shankar.Dr Date Of Hearing 20.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 04.05.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: These Are The Appeals Filed The By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 250 Of The Act.

…provision of section 1941 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer has relied on the decision of Honbie Supreme Court the case of East India Housing and Land Development trust Ld. vs. CIT(1961) 42 ITR 49(SC) and Shambhu Investment (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (263 ITR 143) (SC) and CIT vs. Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. - 266 ITR 685 (Mad. HC) and taxed the rent or rent agreement between two parties should be assessed under the head income from house property u/s. 22 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, 4.3.1The appellant submitted that the Company was incorporated on 7 November 1984 and was engaged in manufacturi…