Shambhu Investment (P) Ltd. v. CIT

263 ITR 143Supreme Court of India2003#528 most cited

What is Shambhu Investment (P) Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Income derived from letting out property along with incidental use of furniture, fixtures, and common facilities is assessable as 'income from house property' and not 'business income' when the prime object is merely to let out and not to exploit the property as a business asset.

181

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Shambhu Investment (P) Ltd. v. CIT · 263 ITR 143 · income from house property · business income · Section 22 Income Tax Act · Section 37(1) Income Tax Act · rental income classification · letting property with amenities · exploitation of property · dominant object letting · Section 2(13) business definition · income classification Supreme Court

Also reported as

129 Taxmann 70

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 22Section 24Section 14ASection 2(13)Section 37(1)Section 250Section 57(iii)

Issues it is cited on

annual valuesection 24(a)section 22disallowance under section 14asection 24section 37(1)scrutiny assessmentincome from other sourcessection 14asalarysection 80transfer

Judgments citing Shambhu Investment (P) Ltd. v. CIT

ACIT Circle-7(1), New Delhi vs. Dlf Assets Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly, the order of the ld. CIT (A) is confirmed and the Revenue’s appeal for AY 2013-14 is dismissed

ITA 8525/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Satyajeet Goel, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Yagya Saini Kakkar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…to sub-let same, was not sufficient to conclude that income in question was taxable as business income - Held, yes - Whether, therefore, impugned order passed by authorities below was to be confirmed - Held, yes. b. Shambhu Investment (P.) ltd. v . CIT [2003] 263 ITR 143 (SC) Section 22, read with section 263, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Income from house property - Chargeable as - Assessment 14 ITA Nos.8524 to 8526/Del./2019 treating income derived by assessee-company from letting out office premises along with certain facilities and services to various persons as business income, was held by Commissioner und…

ACIT Circle-7(1), New Delhi vs. Dlf Assets Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly, the order of the ld. CIT (A) is confirmed and the Revenue’s appeal for AY 2013-14 is dismissed

ITA 8524/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Satyajeet Goel, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Yagya Saini Kakkar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…to sub-let same, was not sufficient to conclude that income in question was taxable as business income - Held, yes - Whether, therefore, impugned order passed by authorities below was to be confirmed - Held, yes. b. Shambhu Investment (P.) ltd. v . CIT [2003] 263 ITR 143 (SC) Section 22, read with section 263, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Income from house property - Chargeable as - Assessment 14 ITA Nos.8524 to 8526/Del./2019 treating income derived by assessee-company from letting out office premises along with certain facilities and services to various persons as business income, was held by Commissioner und…

Shri Shri Prahlad Rai Agrawal, Surajpur (Cg) vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Imcome Tax Central Circle-Korba, Korba(Cg)

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 66/BIL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Mar 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 64, 65 & 66/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08 Shri Prahalad Rai Agrawal Nehru Park Ketka Road, Post Office Surajpur, Dist. Surajpur (C.G.) Pan : Acipa0858L .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle- Korba (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : Shri S.R Rao, Ar Revenue By : Shri Gitesh Kumar, Dr

For Appellant: Shri S.R Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Gitesh Kumar, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

…ttishgarh State Ware House, Raipur, which proved that the asset in question was commercialy exploited. 6. On similar issue, we find that in CIT vs. Shambhu Investment Pvt. Ltd., (249 ITR 7), which was approved by Hon’ble Supreme Court in judgment reported at 263 ITR 143 (SC), Lordships had an occasion to elaborately deal with judicial precedents on whether rental income could be taxed under the head business profits, and Their Lordships concluded as follows: Taking a sum total of aforesaid discussions, it clearly appears that merely because income is attached to any immovable property cannot be the sole factor f…

Shri Shri Prahlad Rai Agrawal, Surajpur (Cg) vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Imcome Tax Central Circle-Korba, Korba(Cg)

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 65/BIL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Mar 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 64, 65 & 66/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08 Shri Prahalad Rai Agrawal Nehru Park Ketka Road, Post Office Surajpur, Dist. Surajpur (C.G.) Pan : Acipa0858L .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle- Korba (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : Shri S.R Rao, Ar Revenue By : Shri Gitesh Kumar, Dr

For Appellant: Shri S.R Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Gitesh Kumar, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

…ttishgarh State Ware House, Raipur, which proved that the asset in question was commercialy exploited. 6. On similar issue, we find that in CIT vs. Shambhu Investment Pvt. Ltd., (249 ITR 7), which was approved by Hon’ble Supreme Court in judgment reported at 263 ITR 143 (SC), Lordships had an occasion to elaborately deal with judicial precedents on whether rental income could be taxed under the head business profits, and Their Lordships concluded as follows: Taking a sum total of aforesaid discussions, it clearly appears that merely because income is attached to any immovable property cannot be the sole factor f…

Shri Shri Prahlad Rai Agrawal, Surajpur (Cg) vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Imcome Tax Central Circle-Korba, Korba(Cg)

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 64/BIL/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Mar 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 64, 65 & 66/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08 Shri Prahalad Rai Agrawal Nehru Park Ketka Road, Post Office Surajpur, Dist. Surajpur (C.G.) Pan : Acipa0858L .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle- Korba (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : Shri S.R Rao, Ar Revenue By : Shri Gitesh Kumar, Dr

For Appellant: Shri S.R Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Gitesh Kumar, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

…ttishgarh State Ware House, Raipur, which proved that the asset in question was commercialy exploited. 6. On similar issue, we find that in CIT vs. Shambhu Investment Pvt. Ltd., (249 ITR 7), which was approved by Hon’ble Supreme Court in judgment reported at 263 ITR 143 (SC), Lordships had an occasion to elaborately deal with judicial precedents on whether rental income could be taxed under the head business profits, and Their Lordships concluded as follows: Taking a sum total of aforesaid discussions, it clearly appears that merely because income is attached to any immovable property cannot be the sole factor f…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Poonam Hassija Neha Hassija, New Delhi

In the result, the ground raised by the Revenue on the issue of salary expenses is dismissed

ITA 3429/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2010-11 Acit, Vs Poonam Hassija Neha Hassija, Circle-27(1), 45, Community Centre, New Delhi. Naraina Phase I, New Delhi. Pan: Aajfp3787C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.P. Rastogi, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Atiq Ahmed, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.01.2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14Th March, 2014 Of The Cit(A)-24, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. This Appeal Was Earlier Decided By The Tribunal Vide Consolidated Order Dated 4Th May, 2018, Vide Ita Nos.4320/Del/2011, 5545/Del/2012 & 3429/Del/2014 For Ays 2008-09 To 2010-11, Respectively. Subsequently, The Tribunal, Vide Ma No.723 To 725/Del/2018, Order Dated 12Th February, 2021 For Ays 2008-09 To 2010-11, Recalled Its Order For The Limited Purpose Of Adjudicating The Ground Relating To Disallowance Of Salary & Staff Welfare Expenses. Therefore, This Is A Recalled Matter.

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Atiq Ahmed, Sr. DR
Section 22

…to explain as to why the hiring charges credited to P&L Account should not be assessed as income from house property u/s 22 of the IT Act in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. M/s Shambhu Investment Pvt. Ltd., reported in 263 ITR 143. It was explained by the assessee that the decision in the case of M/s Shambhu Investment Pvt. Ltd. is not applicable to the facts of the present case and the issue has already been decided by the CIT(A) in the preceding assessment years, i.e., 2008-09 and 2009-10 in favour of the assessee. However, the AO was not satisfied with the arguments adv…

M/S. Vectra Advanced Engineering Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 7(1)(2), Bengaluru

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

ITA 2025/BANG/2018[2010]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jan 2022

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Nitish Ranjan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sankarganesh K, JCIT (DR)
Section 57

…of the structure built by it, the income derived Page 8 of 12 from the property will have to be assessed under the head income from house property and not business. 9.6 The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shambhu Investment Private Limited. v. CIT [(2003) 263 ITR 143 (SC)] had held that where from an agreement between two parties, it is clear that the primary object was to let out the portion of the property with additional rights of use of furniture and fixture and other common facilities, income derived from said property was income to be assessed u/s 22 of the I.T.Act. 9.7 In view of the aforesaid reasoni…

Yash Suneja, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-42(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7947/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

Section 143(3)Section 54F

…from letting out of commercial buildings/warehouses/factory premises were held to be assessable under the provisions of section 22. This view has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Shambhu Investment P. Ltd. Vs. CIT reported as 263 ITR 143(SC). The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Bhoopalam Commercial Complex & Industries (P) Ltd. reported as 262 ITR 517 (Kar), in the facts and circumstances of the case held that rental income from commercial complex is liable to be assessed under the head "income from house property". Thus, in the instant case the Commissioner o…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Arham It Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 5300/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri K.N. Chary[A.Y 2013-14]

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Jagdish Singh, Sr. DR

…d read the relevant findings of the Assessing Officer and through his written submissions placed reliance on the following decisions: a) J.K. Investors Ltd 25 Taxmann.com 12 b) Indian Metal & Metallurgical Corpn 84 Taxmann.com 481 c) Shambu Invesetment Ltd 263 ITR 143 d) K. Bhaskaran Nair 177 Taxmann.com 478 e) Niagara Hotels & Builders Pvt Ltd 263 ITR 143 12. Per contra, the ld. counsel for the assessee reiterated was has been stated before the lower authorities. 13. We have given thoughtful consideration to the orders of the authorities below and have also considered the judicial decisions relied upon by…

ACIT 32(1), Mumbai vs. Ashapura Developers, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3607/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri M. Balaganesh, Am आमकय अऩीर सिं./ Ita No. 3607/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वषा / Assessment Year 2013-14) आमकय अऩीर सिं./ Ita No. 3608/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वषा / Assessment Year 2014-15) आमकय अऩीर सिं./ Ita No. 3609/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वषा / Assessment Year 2015-16) The Asst. Commissioner Of Income M/S Ashapura Developers Tax, Circle 32(1), Room No. 702, 101B, Hallmark Business 7Th Floor, C-41 To C-43, Kautilya Plaza, Opp. Gurunanak फनाभ/ Bhavan, G Block Bandra Kurla Hospital, Ant Gyaneshwar Complex Bandra (East), Marg, Bandra East, Vs. Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400 051 (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा सिं./Pan No. Aanfa1971F अऩीराथी की ओय से/ Appellant By : Shri Rajeev Harit, Cit Dr प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Respondent By : Shri Dr. K Shivaramam, Ar सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 01.07.2021 घोषणा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 01.07.2021 आदेश / O R D E R भहावीय ससिंह, उऩाध्मऺ के द्वाया / Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: These Appeals Of Assessee Are Arising Out Of The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)]-44, Mumbai, [In Short Cit(A)], In Ita Nos. 3607-3608/Mum/2019 M/S Ashapura Developers; Ays 13-14 To 15-16 Appeal No. Cit(A)-44/Jcit-32(1)/It-209 & 696A/16-17 & Even Date 22.03.2019. The Assessments Were Framed By The Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range 32(1), Mumbai (In Short Jcit/Ito/ Ao) For The A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Vide Order Dated 11.03.2016, 30.12.2016, 12.12.2017 Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’).

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Harit, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Dr. K Shivaramam, AR
Section 143(3)

…March, 2011, the appellant- revenue filed an appeal to the Tribunal. By the impugned order dated 19th February, 2014 the Tribunal holds that the dispute stands squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Sambhu Investment (P.) Ltd. V. CIT (2003) 263 ITR 143/129 Taxmann 70. However, Mr. Pinto in support of the appeal points out that after the above decision the issue now stands concluded in favour of the Revenue b ythe decision of the Supreme Court in Chennai Properties & Investment Ltd. V. CIT ITA Nos. 3607-3608/Mum/2019 M/s Ashapura Developers; AYs 13-14 to 15-16 (2015) 56 taxmann. Com 456/231 Taxm…

M/S Vectra Advanced Engineering Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 127/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Apr 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Shailesh Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Kannan Narayanan, JCIT-DR
Section 144Section 22Section 24Section 57

…is the owner of the structure built by it, the income derived from the property will have to be assessed under the head income from house property and not business. 9.6 The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shambhu Investment Private Limited. v. CIT [(2003) 263 ITR 143 (SC)] had held that where from an agreement between two parties, it is clear that the primary object was to let out the portion of the property with additional rights of use of furniture and fixture and other common facilities, income derived from said property was income to be assessed u/s 22 of the I.T.Act. 9.7 In view of the aforesaid reasoni…

Vectra Advanced Engineering Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1328/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Apr 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Shailesh Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Kannan Narayanan, JCIT-DR
Section 144Section 22Section 24Section 57

…is the owner of the structure built by it, the income derived from the property will have to be assessed under the head income from house property and not business. 9.6 The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shambhu Investment Private Limited. v. CIT [(2003) 263 ITR 143 (SC)] had held that where from an agreement between two parties, it is clear that the primary object was to let out the portion of the property with additional rights of use of furniture and fixture and other common facilities, income derived from said property was income to be assessed u/s 22 of the I.T.Act. 9.7 In view of the aforesaid reasoni…

Vectra Advanced Engineering Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1327/BANG/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Apr 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Shailesh Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Kannan Narayanan, JCIT-DR
Section 144Section 22Section 24Section 57

…is the owner of the structure built by it, the income derived from the property will have to be assessed under the head income from house property and not business. 9.6 The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shambhu Investment Private Limited. v. CIT [(2003) 263 ITR 143 (SC)] had held that where from an agreement between two parties, it is clear that the primary object was to let out the portion of the property with additional rights of use of furniture and fixture and other common facilities, income derived from said property was income to be assessed u/s 22 of the I.T.Act. 9.7 In view of the aforesaid reasoni…

Vectra Advanced Engineering Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1326/BANG/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Apr 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Shailesh Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Kannan Narayanan, JCIT-DR
Section 144Section 22Section 24Section 57

…is the owner of the structure built by it, the income derived from the property will have to be assessed under the head income from house property and not business. 9.6 The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shambhu Investment Private Limited. v. CIT [(2003) 263 ITR 143 (SC)] had held that where from an agreement between two parties, it is clear that the primary object was to let out the portion of the property with additional rights of use of furniture and fixture and other common facilities, income derived from said property was income to be assessed u/s 22 of the I.T.Act. 9.7 In view of the aforesaid reasoni…

M/S Vectra Advanced Engineering Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1325/BANG/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Apr 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Shailesh Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Kannan Narayanan, JCIT-DR
Section 144Section 22Section 24Section 57

…is the owner of the structure built by it, the income derived from the property will have to be assessed under the head income from house property and not business. 9.6 The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shambhu Investment Private Limited. v. CIT [(2003) 263 ITR 143 (SC)] had held that where from an agreement between two parties, it is clear that the primary object was to let out the portion of the property with additional rights of use of furniture and fixture and other common facilities, income derived from said property was income to be assessed u/s 22 of the I.T.Act. 9.7 In view of the aforesaid reasoni…

ACIT-9(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S-E-City Projects Construction Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result this appeal filed by the revenue stads dismissed

ITA 4151/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2021AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)Section 24

…) "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, The Ld.CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in completely ignoring the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shambhu Investment (P) Ltd vs CIT(2003) 184CTR (SC) 91: (2003) 263 ITR 143(SC) wherein it is held that income derived by an assessee by letting out furnished premises on 2 M/s. E-city Projects Construction Pvt. Ltd. monthly rent basis to various parties alongwith various services, is assessable as income from property and not business income" iii) "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, t…

Shambala Properties Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circlr-12(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 1647/BANG/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Dec 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Shambala Properties Pvt. Ltd., Acit, No.7, Rest House Road, Circle – 12(3) Vs. Bangalore – 560 001. (Presently – Dcit – 7(1)(2)), Pan No : Aahcs 1313 C Bangalore. Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. B. K. Manjunath, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Elamurusu G, Jcit (Dr)(Itat) Date Of Hearing : 02.12.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.12.2020

For Appellant: Shri. B. K. Manjunath, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Elamurusu G, JCIT (DR)(ITAT)

…ute that the assessee had earned income from house property. The determination of annual value or the rent is also not in dispute. The Assessing Officer had relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shambhu Investment Pvt Ltd (2003) 263 ITR 143 (SC). To our mind the dispute in the present case is not of the nature, whether income from letting out of the house property has to be assessed as a business income or an income from house property. The contentions of the assessee are that it is in the business of letting out of house property. Therefore, the incidental expenses incurred for mai…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Kenmore Vikas India (P) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2673/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleasstt. Year 2012-13

For Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 14Section 24

…has done. (iv) The intention to determine whether income earned from ownership vis-a-vis exploitation of the property in question is rental income or business income is material: 3.2.8 As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shambhu Investments (263 ITR 143) affirming the decision of Calcutta High Court reported in 49 ITR 47, the key test to be applied is the 'primary object' of the assessee or 'intention' in exploiting the property and if it is found, applying such test, that the main intention is for letting out the property or any portion thereof, the same must be considered as rental income or i…

Hind Musafir Agency Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT-2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, this ground of appeal

ITA 247/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarhind Musafir Agency Ltd. Acit- 2(1)(2) 39Th Floor, Sunshine Tower, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Vs. Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar Road, (West), Mumbai-400013. Mumbai-400020. Bominfo@Hmatravel.Com Pan: Aaach1250Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Kirit Kamdar (Ar) Respondent By : Shri R. Bhoopathi (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.09.2020 Orderunder Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh; 1. This Appeal By Assessing Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned

For Appellant: Shri Kirit Kamdar (AR)For Respondent: Shri R. Bhoopathi (DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 254(1)Section 32

…AR for the assessee rely on the decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court in Raj Dadarkar & Associate Vs ACIT [2017] 81 taxmann.com193 (SC), Chennai Property & Investment Ltd Vs CIT [2015] 56 taxmann.com 456(SC) and Shambhu Investment Private Limited Vs CIT [2003] 263 ITR 143 (SC) 5. The ld. AR for the assessee further submits that as per sub-section (2) of section 38 of the Act, if any building used for the purpose of business is not exclusively so used for the purpose of business, the deduction under section 32 shall be restricted to a fair proportionate part, which may be determined by the assessing officer. 6. On…

Telekon Media India Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 25(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5352/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jul 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 143(3)Section 24Section 263

…intention of the assessee was to rent out the demised premises and the building i.e. superstructure but not the furniture. The Learned Counsel relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Shambhu investment private limited versus CIT 263 ITR 143 (SC) and submitted that only intention and privacy object is required to be looked into. According to him the present case the prime object was to let out the building and not to exploit the property for commercial business activities, and therefore the rental income received from M/s. Professional Management Consultant Ltd must be assessed under…