How many judgments cite Shambhu Investment (P) Ltd. v. CIT?

181 judgments on BharatTax cite Shambhu Investment (P) Ltd. v. CIT (263 ITR 143), spanning 2010 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Shambhu Investment (P) Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 22, Section 24, Section 14A, Section 2(13), Section 37(1).

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 22 Section 24 Section 14A Section 2(13)Section 37(1)Section 250 Section 57(iii)

Issues it is cited on

annual value section 24(a)section 22 disallowance under section 14a section 24 section 37(1)scrutiny assessment income from other sources section 14a salary section 80 transfer

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

Trent Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl. C.I.T.-2(3), Mumbai

ITA 5775/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Trent Ltd., V. Add. Cit – 2(3) Bombay House, 2Nd Floor, 24 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Homi Mody Street, Fort Mumbai Mumbai – 400 001 Pan: Aaacl1838J (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Cit – 2(3) V. M/S. Trent Ltd., Room No. 556, 5Th Floor Bombay House, 2Nd Floor, 24 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Homi Mody Street, Fort Mumbai - 400 020 Mumbai – 400 001 Pan: Aaacl1838J (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Trent Ltd., V. Dy. Cit – 2(3) Bombay House, 2Nd Floor, 24 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Homi Mody Street, Fort Mumbai Mumbai – 400 001 Pan: Aaacl1838J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 14ASection 35DSection 37(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s. Trent Ltd., v. Add. CIT – 2(3) Bombay House, 2nd Floor, 24 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Homi Mody Street, Fort Mumbai Mumbai – 400 001 PAN: AAACL1838J (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. CIT – 2(3) v. M/s. Trent Ltd., Room No. 556, 5th Floor Bombay House, 2nd Floor, 24 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Homi Mody Street, Fort Mumbai - 400 020 Mumbai – 400 001 PAN: AAACL1838J (Appellant) (Respondent) M/s. Trent Ltd., v. Dy. CIT – 2(3) Bombay House, 2nd Floor, 24 Aa…

Smt. Nirmala Zaverchand Shah, Mumbai vs. DCIT-13(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 241/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri Manjunatha G, Am आयकर अपील िं./ Ita No. 241/Mum/2019 (ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years 2010-11) Smt. Nirmala Zaverchand The Dy. Commissioner Shah Of Income Tax, 57, Mulji House, 41-45, Devji Ward 13(2), Mumbai बनाम/ Ratansey Marg, Dana Bunder, Vs. Mumbai-400 009, Maharashtra, India (अपीलाथी / Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) स्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aaips0872Q अपीलाथी की ओर े/ Appellant By : Shri Dinkle Hariya, Ar प्रत्यथी की ओर े/ Respondent By : Shri Samanta Mullamudi, Dr ुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17.06.2020 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 17.06.2020

For Appellant: Shri Dinkle Hariya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Samanta Mullamudi, DR

Section 143(3)

…med 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 ITA No..241/Mum/2019 Smt. Narmala Zaverchand Shah.; AY 10-11 under the head income from house property. Hence, we direct the Assessing Officer to consider this income under the head income from house prop…

Sankalpan Infrastructure Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-15(3)(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, and appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed

ITA 6010/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6010/Mum/2017 & 2400/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13 &2013-14)

For Appellant: ShriSubodhFor Respondent: Shri V. Vinod Kumar

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 41

…ter considering the submissions of the assessee and other judicial pronouncements relied on by the assessee, Assessing Officer rejected the contention of the assessee by relying on the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Shambhu Investment Pvt. Ltd. 263 ITR 143(SC) and brought 6 I.T.A. No. 6010/Mum/2017 & 2400/Mum/2018 Sankalpan Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. the income declared by the assessee as income from house property and assessed the same under the head Income from House Property. 8. Since, the above said rental income was assessed as income from house property, the claim of the assessee on the depre…

Deep Multiplex Pvt. Ltd., Baroda vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1) (1), Baroda

In the results, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1719/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-आयकर अपील सं./ Ita.No.1719/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Deep Muliplex P.Ltd. Dcit, Cir.1(1)(4) 9, Arunoday Society Baroda. Vs 2, Mangaljyot Apartment Alkapuri Baroda Pan : Aabck 4719 Q अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.K. Patel, Ar Revenue By : Shri Dilip Kumar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03/02/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/02/2020 आदेश/O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dilip Kumar, Sr.DR

Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

…mmissioner, who held that income of the assessee is to be assessed ITA No.1719 /Ahd/2017 13 under the head “business income”. In that case also the AO has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble supreme Court in the case of Shambhu Investment P.Ltd. reported in 263 ITR 143 wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has upheld the decision of Hon’ble Kolkatta High Court. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court has considered judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shambhu Investment and held that in the present case, the income of the assessee is to be assessed under the head business income. The discussion made by the Hon’ble G…

Falcon Vincon Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Pr.CIT-3, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1159/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Falcon Vincon Private Limited Vs. Pr. Cit-3, Kolkata 102, Tower No.12, Shriram Sameeksha, New Gangamma Gudi Police Station Road, Naidu Layout, Bengaluru "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcf3203C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tibrewal, FCAFor Respondent: Dr. P. K. Srihari, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(3)

…the security free advance covering the entire cost of the said immovable property, the income derived from the said property was an income from property and should be assessed as such. The appeal filed by revenue was upheld by Hon 'ble Supreme Court in (2003) 263 ITR 143(SC).” 5. However the ld. Pr. CIT rejected the contention of the assessee and held as follows: “4. I have carefully considered the submission made on behalf of the assessee and perused the materials available on records. It appears from the records and documents furnished on behalf of the assessee company that during F.Y 2012- 13, total credit t…

DCIT 3 (1)(1), Mumbai vs. Banzai Estates Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed in terms of our above order

ITA 7268/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Golecha- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik-Ld.DR

Section 143(3)

…derived from exploitation of properties for commercial business activities which is in the nature of business income assessable under the “Income from Business” as per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shambhu Investments vs CIT in 263 ITR 143 (SC)? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was right in treating the rental income derived from letting out properties taken on lease from others as income assessable under the head “Income from House Property”, without appreciating that the assessee is following the business module of taking pro…

Sunil Hingorani, Mumbai vs. ITO 16(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the ground no

ITA 5951/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm) Shri Sunil Hingorani Vs Ito-16(1)(4), 104, Nibhana Annex, Room No. 438, Pali Hill, Bandra (W), Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai-400 050 New Marine Lines, Pan : Aaaph1482P Mumbai -400020 Appellant Respondednt

Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI Before Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) & Shri Pawan Singh (JM) Shri Sunil Hingorani Vs ITO-16(1)(4), 104, Nibhana Annex, Room No. 438, Pali Hill, Bandra (W), Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai-400 050 New Marine Lines, PAN : AAAPH1482P Mumbai -400020 APPELLANT RESPONDEDNT Appellant by Shri Ajay Sekhri AR Respondent by Shri Akhtar H Ansari SR DR Date of hearing 27-11-2019 Date of pronouncement 20-12-2019 O R D E R PER PAWAN SINGH, JM : 1. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the learned CIT(A)-4, Mumbai dated 27-09-2018, which arises fro…

M/S Popular Finance Company, Pathanamthitta vs. The ACIT, Cir-1, Thiruvalla

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 204/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)

…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 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; and therefore, the same has to be held as income…

M/S.Popular Finance, Pathanamthitta vs. The ACIT, Circle-1, Thiruvalla

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 203/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)

M/S Popular Finance Company, Pathanamthitta vs. The ACIT, Cir-1, Thiruvalla

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 202/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)

Dynacon Equipments Pvt Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 1(4), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee in ITA

ITA 2263/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Duvvuru R.L.Reddy

For Appellant: Mr.Srinivasa Rao Vana, JCITFor Respondent: 21.11.2019

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी र"मत कोचर, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी धु$वु% आर.एल. रे'डी, "या)यक सद"य के सम* BEFORE SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU R.L.REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.2172 & 2263/Chny/2018 )नधा+रण वष+ /Assessment Years: 2006-07 & 2009-10 v. M/s.Dynacon Equipments Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner of 188, Poonamallee High Road, Income Tax, Ground Floor, Middle Block, Kilpauk, Corporate Circle-1(4), Chennai-600 010. Chennai-600 034. [PAN: AABCD 2124 N] (अपीलाथ./Appellant) (/0यथ./Respondent) : Mr.D.Anand, Adv. अपीलाथ.…

Dynacon Equipments Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 1(4), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee in ITA

ITA 2172/CHNY/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Duvvuru R.L.Reddy

For Appellant: Mr.Srinivasa Rao Vana, JCITFor Respondent: 21.11.2019

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Nimesh Dhiraj Lal Vora, Mumbai vs. ACIT, WD- 17 (2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4989/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (A.M.) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm) Nimesh Dhirajlal Vora Vs Acit, Wd.17(2), Flat No.26, 6Th Floor, Room No. 123A, Neemchhaya Joshi Lane Aayakar Bhawan, Ghatkopar (East), Mumbai- Maharshi, Karve Road, 400 077 Mumbai-400020 Pan : Aacpv5956C Appellant Respondednt

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…ead ‘house property’. The tribunal while directing the AO followed the judgement of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs Sambhu Investments Pvt Ltd (2001) 249 ITR 47 (Cal); and Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sambhu Investments Pvt Ltd Vs CIT (2003) 263 ITR 143 (SC). 4 ITA 4989/Mum/2018 Nimesh Dhirajlal Vora 4. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, though agreed that the issue is covered by the Tribunal order in favour of the assessee, still, relied upon the orders of authorities below. 5. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that on similar set of…

Mafatlal Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal and cross objection are partly allowed and Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 5202/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ravish Sood (Jm)

Section 14ASection 37(1)

…ed in view of the fact that 30% deduction on a flat basis is provided under section 22 (a) to specifically take care of such expenses 54. The AO also relied on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Shamboo Investments Pvt Ltd versus CIT 263 ITR 143 holding that this judgement of the Honourable Supreme Court has overruled all the other judgements that the appellant has relied upon. It was also stated by the AO that the appellant had been following a differential treatment in respect of Mafatlal house which also justifies the stand taken. Accordingly the AO had proceeded to recompute the rent…

Gulmohar Park Mall Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-4, Ahmedabad

In the result, both appeals are allowed as indicated above

ITA 3560/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 57Section 57(2)(iii)

…nd setting up markets and the occupants are not permanent. ITA Nos. 3559 & 3560/Ahd/2015 Gulmohar Park Mall Pvt Ltd Vs. DCIT Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Page 5 of 8 (b) Further reliance is also placed on : - Shambhu Investment (P) Ltd vs. CIT (2003) 263 ITR 143 (SC) - CIT vs. New Bharat Engineering (Jam) Pvt Ltd (1992) 203 ITR 678 (Guj) - ITO v. Shri Dwarkadhis Estate (1992) 203 ITR 678 (Guj) - CIT vs. New India Industries Ltd (1993) 201 ITR 208 (Bom) - Parekh Traders vs. CIT (1984) 150 ITR 310 (Bom) - Scindia Potteries (P) Ltd vs. CIT (2001) 171 CTR 457 (Del) - CIT vs. Chennai Properties & Investments…

Gulmohar Park Mall Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-4, Ahmedabad

In the result, both appeals are allowed as indicated above

ITA 3559/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 57Section 57(2)(iii)

DCIT 3 (1)(1), Mumbai vs. Banzai Estates Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 3688/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3688/Mum/2018 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2011-12) The Dy. Commissioner Of Banzai Estates Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, 49, Bajaj Bhavan, Nariman Point, Vs. Room No. 607, Aayakar Mumbai-400 021 Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) स्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aaacb6915C अपीलाथी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh, Cit Dr प्रत्यथी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri Rohit Golecha, Ar ुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13.08.2019 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2019 Aadosa / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar SinghFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Golecha, AR

Section 143(3)

…axmann.com 193 (SC) has clearly held that in case the provisions of Section 22 are applicable the property is to be assessed as income from house property. 6. Hon’ble Supreme Court has also validated the decision of Shambu Investment Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (2003) 263 ITR 143 (SC) and CIT vs. Kanak Investment Pvt. Ltd. [1974] 95 ITR 419 (Calcutta) and also Karani Properties Limited vs. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 547 (SC). Further, Hon’ble Supreme Court 9 has also affirmed the decision of Sultan Bros. (P) Ltd. v. CIT, (1964) 5 SCR 807. They have further distinguished the case law of Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd 373 ITR…

Shibani S. Bhojwani, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 3(4), Mumbai

ITA 1525/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh A. Thar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

…urniture are inseparably let, the Act contemplates the rent from the building as a residuary head of income”. The aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court was further deliberated upon by the court in the case of Shambhu Investment (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2003) 263 ITR 143 (SC), while upholding the order of the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of CIT Vs. Shambhu Investment (P) Ltd. (2001) 249 ITR 47 (Cal), wherein laying down the parameters for adjudicating as to whether the income derived by an assessee from letting out of furnished premises was liable to be assessed under the head ‘Income from house pro…

Devbhumi Estates (Mumbai) P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 2(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 649/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ravish Sooddevbhumi Estates Pvt. Ltd. The Deputy Commissioner Of 43, 4Th Floor, Ajaydeep Building, Income Tax, Cirlce-2(1)(1), 240 Perin Nariman Street, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai 400001 Mumbai.

For Appellant: Shri Dinkle Hariya &For Respondent: Shri D.G. Pansari, D.R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 24

…ch rent was being paid, the income derived therefrom would be assessable under the head “house property”. The aforesaid judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court was thereafter been approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sambhu Investments Pvt. ltd. Vs. CIT (2003) 263 ITR 143 (SC). Accordingly, on the basis of our aforesaid observations, we are of the considered view that the amount received by the assessee for providing the amenities/facilities to the licensee as per the “Amenities agreement”, dated 07.08.2012 was rightly shown by the assessee as its income under the head “house property”. At the same time, we may he…

DCIT - 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Bombay Stock Exchange Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal in ITA

ITA 4820/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble&

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri Ravindra

Section 14ASection 234CSection 24

….NO. 4820 & 152/MUM/2016 (A.Y: 2010-11) M/s. Bombay Stock Exchange Ltd., the lease agreements entered into by the assessee with the tenants and placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shambhu Investments Pvt. Ltd., v. CIT [263 ITR 143] held that the monthly rent received by the assessee from letting out of premises with furniture and fixtures is assessable under the head “Income from House Property” and accordingly he computed the income from House property after allowing property taxes paid and 30% towards repairs. The claim of the assessee towards business expenses towards r…