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 367,154 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

M/S.Oberon Edifices & Estates P. Ltd, Kochi vs. The Pr.CIT, Trivandrum

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

ITA 361/COCH/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. No. 361/Coch/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Oberon Edifices & Estates Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Oberon Mall, Income-Tax, Trivandrum. Nh Bye-Pass, Edapally, Kochi-682 024. [Pan:Aaaco 7942E]

Section 263

…) Allahabad High Court in the case of Atlantis Multiplex Private Limited [2017-TIOL-2683-HC-ALL-IT] I.T.A. No./361/C/2017 4.9.3 It was submitted that the CIT has erred in relying on the ratio of the decision of CIT v. Shambhu Investments (P) Ltd reported in 263 ITR 143 and in the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of Attukal Shopping Complex reported in 259 ITR 567. It was submitted that the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for the AY 2008-09 had previously quashed the CIT’s reliance on the same decisions mentioned above and proven that the ratio of the decision of the High Court of Ker…

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

…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 (Appeals) distinguished the ITA Nos.195,196, 376 & 377/16 :- 5 -: judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Elnet Technologies Ltd.(supra) observing that circumstance of each case had to be considered before reaching a conclusion whether income should be considered under the head income fro…

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

…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 (Appeals) distinguished the ITA Nos.195,196, 376 & 377/16 :- 5 -: judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Elnet Technologies Ltd.(supra) observing that circumstance of each case had to be considered before reaching a conclusion whether income should be considered under the head income fro…

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

…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 (Appeals) distinguished the ITA Nos.195,196, 376 & 377/16 :- 5 -: judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Elnet Technologies Ltd.(supra) observing that circumstance of each case had to be considered before reaching a conclusion whether income should be considered under the head income fro…

ACIT 31(1), Mumbai vs. Gundecha Builders, Mumbai

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4266/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh() & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

…ngly, deleted addition made by the AO towards disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80IB(10) of the Act. Similarly, held as stock in trade, the Ld.CIT(A), by following the decision Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Shambu Investments (P) Ltd vs CIT 263 ITR 143 (SC) and also by following the decision of ITAT, Mumbai in assessee’s own case for AY 2008-09 directed the AO to assess rent 8 ITA 4266/Mum/2015 & CO 74/Mum/2017 derived from properties held as stock in trade under the head ‘Income from house property’. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the revenue is in appeal before us and the assessee has f…

Sun Enterprises, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(3)(4), Mumbai

ITA 4987/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ramlal Negi

For Appellant: Shri V. Justin-DR
Section 22Section 24Section 250

…loans on which appellant is paying interest of Rs 1.26 crore. This clearly proves that primary motive of appellant is to develop the property and not earn rent income. Thus reliance placed by Ld. C1T(A) on decision of Shambhu Investment (P) Ltd. v CIT (2003) 263 ITR 143 Is misplaced. In this case It was primary object of assessee was to earn rent income. This decision is distinguishable on facts. The appellant also relies on decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of M/s Rayala Corporation Pvt. Ltd, v ACIT (2016) 72 taxmann.com 49. In this case it is held that the business of assessee is to lease its property…

Chand N. Bhojwani, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 3(4), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 7391/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri. Yogesh Thar &For Respondent: Shri M.C Omi Ningshen (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 56

…. The assessee showed income from letting out of flats as business income which was assessed to tax by the AO under the head „Income from house property‟ by following the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Shambhu Investment P. Ltd v. CIT (2003) 263 ITR 143(SC) . The AO also followed his own decision for the preceding year i.e. AY 2011-12 , which was later approved by ld. CIT-A vide order dated 03.10.2014 for AY 2011-12 wherein learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. The assessee went in appeal before the learned CIT-A challenging the assessment order passed by the AO u/s 143(3) for…

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

…to assess rental income from warehouse and roof as business disregarding the provisions of I.T. Act 1961, for such assessment under the head “Income From House Property” and the judgment of the Supreme Court given in the case of Shambhu Investment Pvt. Ltd., 263 ITR 143 only in the name of consistency.” 2 Madhu Snap Fastners Mfg. Co. Pvt. Ltd. 3. Brief facts are, as stated by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order, the assessee company is engaged in the business of warehousing. For the assessment year under dispute, the assessee filed its return of income on 12th September 2013, declaring total income of…

DCIT, Cir-26, Kolkata vs. M/S Tewari Warehousing Company, Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands allowed partly for statistical

ITA 1316/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Mar 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2010-11 Dcit, Circle-26 M/S Tewari Warehousing Co. बनाम / Aayakar Bhawan Hide Shed Dump, Old V/S. Dakshin, 2, Gariahat Goragacha Road, Kolkata-88 Road, (South), [Pan No.Aacft 5579 K] Kolkata-68 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri Arindam Bhattacherjee, Addl. Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Vikash Surana, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 31-01-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 16-03-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Revenue Is Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Kolkata Dated 14.03.2016. Assessment Was Framed By Jcit, Range- 53, Kolkata U/S 143(3)/144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 28.03.2013 For Assessment Year 2010-11. The Grounds Raised By The Revenue Per Its Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Directing To Assess The Entire Gross Receipts S Business Income & Allow Deductions As Per Section 28 To 43 Of The It Act When Rental Income Of Rs.2,31,00,000/- Was Already Included In The Gross Receipts. 2. That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Estimation Of Business Profits Of Rs.2,37,72,132/- Made By The Ao Though Rejection Of Assessee’S Books Of Account U/S 145(3) Considering The Facts Of The Case. 3. That The Ld. Cit(A)’S Order Is Contrary To The Law & Fact Of The Case. 4. The Appellant Craves Leaves To, Add To, Alter Or Modify Any One Or All Of The Grounds Of Appeal Mentioned Above.”

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 194Section 27Section 28

…at Contracting Tea company paid the proceeds amounting to Rs.2.31 crores after deducting the Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) u/s 194-I as evident from Form 26AS. 2. Further, A.O. referred the Apex court Judgments in the case of Shambhu Investment Pvt. Ltd vs CIT 263 ITR 143 and CIT Poddar Cements 226 ITR 625 wherein it was held that if the income is arising for the use of land and building then it should be necessarily be taxed as “Income from House Property”. 3. The A.O. also observed that assessee is not the owner of the said premises but as per the provision of section 27(iiib) of Income Tax Act, 1961 the assesse…

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)

…ply has been furnished to justify interest income as it is business receipts. 8. The AO after considering rival submissions of both the parties and also relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shambhu Investment P. Ltd. vs. CIT (SC) 263 ITR 143, observed that rental income received from letting out of properties is 5 M/s. Bharat Tiles & Marble Pvt. Ltd. assessable under the head “Income from house property”, but not under the head “Income from business or profession” and accordingly considered rental income under the head “Income from house property” and recomputed income from house pro…

Tulsi Shipping P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 2(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 5558/MUM/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri C.N. Prasad

For Appellant: Ms. Aasifa KhanFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 147

…so far as Assessment Year 2008-09 is concerned, the Assessing Officer has treated the income from godown rent as ‘income from house property’ by following the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shambu Investment Pvt. Ltd vs CIT, 263 ITR 143 (SC); and, similar stand has been taken for Assessment Year 2013-14. 8. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. As the aforesaid discussion reveals, the sum and substance of the dispute revolves around the character of amount received by the assessee against giving of godown space on rent. Notably, the appellant-assessee is engaged in…

Tulsi Shipping P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 2(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 5708/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri C.N. Prasad

For Appellant: Ms. Aasifa KhanFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 147

…so far as Assessment Year 2008-09 is concerned, the Assessing Officer has treated the income from godown rent as ‘income from house property’ by following the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shambu Investment Pvt. Ltd vs CIT, 263 ITR 143 (SC); and, similar stand has been taken for Assessment Year 2013-14. 8. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. As the aforesaid discussion reveals, the sum and substance of the dispute revolves around the character of amount received by the assessee against giving of godown space on rent. Notably, the appellant-assessee is engaged in…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore vs. M/S.Prestige Garden Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1849/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Lalit Kumarasst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 5(1)(2), Bengaluru. … Appellant Vs. M/S.Prestige Garden Constructions Pvt. Ltd. No.1, The Falcon House, Main Guard Cross Road, Off Infantry Road, Bengaluru-560 001. … Respondent Pan:Aabcp 2091E

For Appellant: Shri B.K.Panda, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri Sudheendra, CA

…he revenue is in appeal before us 6. The learned DR contended that the ld.CIT(A) was not justified in treating rental income derived from the Mall as business income in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shambhu Investments (263 ITR 143) and jurisdictional High Court in the case of Bhoopalam Commercial Complex (supra). On the other hand, the learned AR of the assessee submitted that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee company by the order of this Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for earlier years in ITA No. 806/Bang/2015 for the assessment year 2010-11 and also th…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Excel Softech Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1345/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Dec 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Smt. Beena A Pillaia.Y. 2011-12 Acit, Circle 8(2) Excel Softech P Ltd. C.R.Bldg. Vs. 130, Transport Ip Estate Centre New Delhi Punjabi Bagh New Delhi 110 035 Pan: Aabce 6651 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Kailash Chandra Tiwari, Sr.D.R. Respondent By Shri Ved Jain, Adv. Sh. Asish Chadha, Adv. Sh. Asish Goel, Adv. Date Of Hearing 26/12/2017 Date Of Pronouncement 28/12/2017 Order Per Beena A Pillai

Section 143Section 143(3)

…property. 4.1. Ld. DR placed reliance upon the following decisions: • Raj Dadarkar &Associates vs ACIT reported in (2017) TOIL - 222- SC- IT; • CIT versus Ansal Housing and Construction reported in 389 ITR 373 (Delhi) • Shambhu Investments vs. CIT reported in 263 ITR 143 (SC) 4.2. On the contrary Ld.AR placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd vs. CIT reported in 373 ITR 673. Ld.AR submitted that during the year assessee was engaged in the business of letting Page 3 of 5 ITA 1345/Del/2016 Assessment Year 2012-13 Excel Softech Pvt.Ltd. ou…

M/S Scrips N Scroll (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1262/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Dec 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Pardeep Kumar, JCIT (D.R)

…es to the occupants 8 of the building be treated as ‘Business Income’ as declared by the assessee. 6.2.2 Further, the learned Authorised Representative submitted that the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shambhu Investments Pvt. Ltd. (2003) 263 ITR 143(SC) is not applicable to the case on hand as the facts in the cited case are different. In that case the assessee was earning rental income from letting out of building along with furniture, fixtures and machinery and contended the same to be assessable as ‘Business Income’. The Hon'ble Court laid down certain tests to decide the in-separable / s…

M/Sviswarupa Builders and Developers P Ltd/ vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward/3(I) Hyderabad

ITTA/151/2005HC Telangana22 Nov 2017

Bench: C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,T.AMARNATH GOUD

For Appellant: Mr. A.V.A. SivaFor Respondent: Mr. B. Narasimha Sarma
Section 148

…d any error in order to interfere with it. Admittedly, there are no separate agreements for rental income and maintenance charges. On the facts of the case, it cannot be 1 [1964] 51 ITR 353 (SC) 2 [2003] 263 ITR 143 (SC) CVNR, J & TA, J ITTA Nos.59 of 2005 and batch 6 disputed that the maintenance of flats was undertaken by the assessee in connection with the letting out of the apartments to the lessees. When the rentals, which are the main source of income, are treated as not falling under the head “business source”, it would be anomalous to tre…

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

…has rightly assessed compensation received under the head "Income from house property and his order should be upheld. In support of his argument, he relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shambhu Investment (P) Ltd vs. CIT (2003) 263 ITR 143 (SC) and submitted that income ITA No.351/Mum/2015 derived from letting out furnished premises on monthly rent to various parties along with furniture, fixtures, etc. and also providing them common services like watch and ward, electricity, water and other amenities without any separate charge was assessable as "Income from house property" and no…

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

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5097/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi: A.Y : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri R.P. MeenaFor Respondent: Shri Jay Bhansali
Section 143(3)Section 24Section 260A

…) "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 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, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the intere…

ITO 8(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Niyman Mall Management Co P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes and the CO of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2744/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am Income Tax Officer 8(2)(3) Niyman Mall Management Room No. 213/216A, 2Nd Floor, Co. Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Knowledge House, Shyam Vs. Mumbai-400020 Nagar, Off. Jogeshwari Vikhroli, Link Road, Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai-60 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aaccn0043P

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

…ITA No. 2742/Mum/2013 and also in 2008-09 in ITA No. 2744/Mum/2017. Aggrieved, assessee preferred the appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) after going through the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Shambhu Investment (P) Ltd. vs CIT (2003) 263 ITR 143 (SC) treated the business center receipts as business income by observing in Para 4.3 as under: - “4.3. 1 have carefully considered the facts of the case, the submissions of the appellant, assessment order. The A.O. has given importance to the words used in documents furnished to bank to conclude that receipts were rent. The appellant's submissi…

ITO 8(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Niyaman Mall Management Co P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes and the CO of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2742/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am Income Tax Officer 8(2)(3) Niyman Mall Management Room No. 213/216A, 2Nd Floor, Co. Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Knowledge House, Shyam Vs. Mumbai-400020 Nagar, Off. Jogeshwari Vikhroli, Link Road, Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai-60 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aaccn0043P

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

…ITA No. 2742/Mum/2013 and also in 2008-09 in ITA No. 2744/Mum/2017. Aggrieved, assessee preferred the appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) after going through the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Shambhu Investment (P) Ltd. vs CIT (2003) 263 ITR 143 (SC) treated the business center receipts as business income by observing in Para 4.3 as under: - “4.3. 1 have carefully considered the facts of the case, the submissions of the appellant, assessment order. The A.O. has given importance to the words used in documents furnished to bank to conclude that receipts were rent. The appellant's submissi…