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

ITO 8(2)(4), 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 2823/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2017AY 2006-07

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…

A.B. Hotels Ltd. (Radisson Hotel), New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result the above three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4011/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh Malhotra, CAFor Respondent: Sh. R.C.Danday, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 24

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” Bench, Delhi BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 4009/Del/2014 : A.Y. 2006-07 I.T.A. No. 4010/Del/2014 : A.Y. 2009-10 I.T.A. No. 4011/Del/2014 : A.Y. 2011-12 A.B.Hotels Ltd. (Radisson ACIT Hotel) s. Central Circle-3 National Highway-8 New Delhi New Delhi PAN-AAACA2729B [Appellant] [Respondent] Appellant by: Sh. Rajesh Malhotra, CA Respondent by: Sh. R.C.Danday, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing 13.06.2017 Date of pronouncement 16 .06.2017 O R D E R PER R.K. PANDA, A.M: The above three appeals filed by the assessee ar…

A.B. Hotels Ltd. (Radisson Hotel), New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result the above three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4010/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh Malhotra, CAFor Respondent: Sh. R.C.Danday, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 24

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” Bench, Delhi BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 4009/Del/2014 : A.Y. 2006-07 I.T.A. No. 4010/Del/2014 : A.Y. 2009-10 I.T.A. No. 4011/Del/2014 : A.Y. 2011-12 A.B.Hotels Ltd. (Radisson ACIT Hotel) s. Central Circle-3 National Highway-8 New Delhi New Delhi PAN-AAACA2729B [Appellant] [Respondent] Appellant by: Sh. Rajesh Malhotra, CA Respondent by: Sh. R.C.Danday, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing 13.06.2017 Date of pronouncement 16 .06.2017 O R D E R PER R.K. PANDA, A.M: The above three appeals filed by the assessee ar…

A.B. Hotels Ltd. (Radisson Hotel), New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result the above three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4009/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh Malhotra, CAFor Respondent: Sh. R.C.Danday, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 24

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” Bench, Delhi BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 4009/Del/2014 : A.Y. 2006-07 I.T.A. No. 4010/Del/2014 : A.Y. 2009-10 I.T.A. No. 4011/Del/2014 : A.Y. 2011-12 A.B.Hotels Ltd. (Radisson ACIT Hotel) s. Central Circle-3 National Highway-8 New Delhi New Delhi PAN-AAACA2729B [Appellant] [Respondent] Appellant by: Sh. Rajesh Malhotra, CA Respondent by: Sh. R.C.Danday, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing 13.06.2017 Date of pronouncement 16 .06.2017 O R D E R PER R.K. PANDA, A.M: The above three appeals filed by the assessee ar…

Banzai Estates P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 4034/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am

Section 143(3)Section 24

…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 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 67…

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

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 4454/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am

Section 143(3)Section 24

…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 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 67…

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

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 4452/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am

Section 143(3)Section 24

…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 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 67…

Shri M M Creations, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

ITA 5641/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini & Smt. Beena A. Pillai & M. M. Creations Acit T-481A, Baljeet Nagar Circle-24(1), Behind Patel Nagar Police Station New Delhi Vs. New Delhi. Pan : Aaefm9802A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. R. S. SinghviFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 24Section 56Section 56(2)(iii)

…) 373 ITR 494 and decision Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shambhu Investments Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2001) 249 ITR 47 which has been subsequently approved by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shambhu Investments Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT reported in (2003) 263 ITR 143. 10. On the other hand, Ld. DR submitted that assessee is into business of hiring of building and therefore, rent received from agreement to lease of building would amount to business income in the hands of assessee. He submitted that Agilent International lessee would not have taken building on lease without fit outs, as it appears from composit…

Solid Contianers Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO RG 7(2)(4), Mumbai

ITA 5135/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2017AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri Neeraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri Vishwas Mundhe-DR
Section 143Section 254(1)

…ring the available material the FAA ITA/5135/Mum/2013-AY.2007-08 held that the assessee was the deemed owner of the property, that the AO had rightly assessed the income under the head house property.He referred to the case of Shambhu Investments P. Ltd., (263 ITR 143). 2.2.During the course of hearing before us, the Authorised Representative (AR) argued that the assessee had discontinued his business,that in earlier year part of the property was given on sub- lease,that the rental income was shown under the head income from business.The Departmental Representative(DR)contended that the assessee had not carrie…

ITO 3(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Bajaj Capital Ventures P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee as well as Revenue are partly allowed, as above

ITA 789/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negibajaj Capital Ventures Pvt. Ltd., 106/107, 10Th Floor, Bajaj Bhavan, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, 226 Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 Pan: Aaaca 3565F ...... Appellant Vs. Dy.Cit – 3(1)(1), Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 .... Respondent Dy.Cit – 3(1)(1), Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 .... Appellant

For Appellant: Shri V. MohanFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Singla
Section 143(3)

…remises to be a ‘business centre’ and taxing the rental income as ‘income from house property’. In coming to such a decision, the CIT(A) noted the reliance placed by the Assessing Officer on the following judgments:- 1. Shambhu Investments Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, 263 ITR 143(SC), 2. Atmaram Properties P. Ltd., 85 ITD 86(Del) 3. Rani Paliwal vs. CIT, 268 ITR 220 (P&H) 3.2 Against such a decision of the CIT(A), assessee is in further appeal before us. Before us, the Ld. Representative for the assessee pointed out that leasing of property was one of the objectives of the assessee company and in this regard drew our atte…

Bajaj Capital Ventures P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 3(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee as well as Revenue are partly allowed, as above

ITA 1257/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negibajaj Capital Ventures Pvt. Ltd., 106/107, 10Th Floor, Bajaj Bhavan, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, 226 Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 Pan: Aaaca 3565F ...... Appellant Vs. Dy.Cit – 3(1)(1), Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 .... Respondent Dy.Cit – 3(1)(1), Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 .... Appellant

For Appellant: Shri V. MohanFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Singla
Section 143(3)

…remises to be a ‘business centre’ and taxing the rental income as ‘income from house property’. In coming to such a decision, the CIT(A) noted the reliance placed by the Assessing Officer on the following judgments:- 1. Shambhu Investments Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, 263 ITR 143(SC), 2. Atmaram Properties P. Ltd., 85 ITD 86(Del) 3. Rani Paliwal vs. CIT, 268 ITR 220 (P&H) 3.2 Against such a decision of the CIT(A), assessee is in further appeal before us. Before us, the Ld. Representative for the assessee pointed out that leasing of property was one of the objectives of the assessee company and in this regard drew our atte…

M.I.G. Cricket Club, Mumbai vs. DIT (E), Mumbai

In the result, appeal in ITA no 602/Mum/2012 filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 602/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 12ASection 143Section 2(15)

…as laid down in the above proviso and hence proviso to Section 2(15) of 1961 Act (which has come into force w.e.f. assessment year 2009-10 is clearly hit). The learned DIT(E) relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shambhu Investments 263 ITR 143 (Supreme Court) and also held that newly inserted proviso to Section 2(15) of 1961 Act is applicable from assessment year 2009-10 as provided by statute. Thus, the learned DIT(E) held that the claim of the assessee has become non genuine, for the purposes of claiming exemption u/s 11 of 1961 Act as for allowing exemption to trust/institution, the…

Reliance Infrastructure and Consultants Ltd ( Erstwhile Reliance Infrastructure Ltd), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 10(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of revenue also allowed

ITA 6452/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Asstt.Commissioner Of Income Tax- M/S Rel Utility Engineers Ltd, -Range-10(1), (Erstwhile M/S Reliance Room No.455, Aaykar Bhavan, Infrastructure & Consultants फनधभ/ M K Road, Near Churchgate, Ltd, Devidas Lane, Mumbai-400020 Vs. Near Mtnl, Off Svp Road, Borivali (W)- Mumbai-400103 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : M/S Rel Utility Engineers Ltd, Asstt.Commissioner Of Income Tax- -Range-10(1), (Erstwhile Reliance Room No.455, Aaykar Bhavan, Infrastructure & Consultants फनधभ/ M K Road, Near Churchgate, Ltd, Devidas Lane, Mumbai-400020 Vs. Near Mtnl, Off Svp Road, Borivali (W)-400103. स्थधमी रेखध सं./ Pan : Aaccr7678G (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra SanghviFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal
Section 115JSection 14A

…received rent of Rs.36,72,000/- and also claimed depreciation of Rs.22,06,760/- on the said premises. The AO during the course of assessment proceedings relied on the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Shambhu Investment Pvt Ltd V/s CIT reported 263 ITR 143 (SC) came to the conclusion that the rental income has to be taxed as income from house property and not business income and accordingly dismissed the said income. The ld. CIT(A) also confirmed the action of the AO. Now, we find that the case of the assessee stands covered in favour of the revenue 15 and 6452/M/2011 and against the assessee by…

DCIT 10(1), Mumbai vs. Reliance Infrastructure and Consultants Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of revenue also allowed

ITA 6266/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Asstt.Commissioner Of Income Tax- M/S Rel Utility Engineers Ltd, -Range-10(1), (Erstwhile M/S Reliance Room No.455, Aaykar Bhavan, Infrastructure & Consultants फनधभ/ M K Road, Near Churchgate, Ltd, Devidas Lane, Mumbai-400020 Vs. Near Mtnl, Off Svp Road, Borivali (W)- Mumbai-400103 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : M/S Rel Utility Engineers Ltd, Asstt.Commissioner Of Income Tax- -Range-10(1), (Erstwhile Reliance Room No.455, Aaykar Bhavan, Infrastructure & Consultants फनधभ/ M K Road, Near Churchgate, Ltd, Devidas Lane, Mumbai-400020 Vs. Near Mtnl, Off Svp Road, Borivali (W)-400103. स्थधमी रेखध सं./ Pan : Aaccr7678G (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra SanghviFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal
Section 115JSection 14A

…received rent of Rs.36,72,000/- and also claimed depreciation of Rs.22,06,760/- on the said premises. The AO during the course of assessment proceedings relied on the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Shambhu Investment Pvt Ltd V/s CIT reported 263 ITR 143 (SC) came to the conclusion that the rental income has to be taxed as income from house property and not business income and accordingly dismissed the said income. The ld. CIT(A) also confirmed the action of the AO. Now, we find that the case of the assessee stands covered in favour of the revenue 15 and 6452/M/2011 and against the assessee by…

Sukhsagar Traders P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 8(3)2, Mumbai

ITA 7364/MUM/2010[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2017AY 1999-00

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./7364/Mum/2010,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 1999-2000 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Sukhsagar Traders Private Ltd. Ito-8(3)2 301A, Solaris-I, 72 Saki Vihar Road Aayakar Bhavan, M.K Road Andheri East , Mumbai Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 072. Pan:Aaacs 6165 P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By: Dr. A.K. Nayak- Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से /Assessee By: Dr. Paras Jain सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21/03/2017 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 31.03.2017 लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- अनुसार Challenging The Order Dt.3.8.2010 Of Cit(A), Mumbai The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal. Assessee-Company Filed Its Return Of Income On 31. 01. 1999,Declaring Income Rs.13. 16 Lakhs.Initially Return Was Processed U/S.143(1) Of The Act. Later On Notice U/S.148 Of The Act Was Issued On 27.3.2006 After Recording The Reasons For Re-Opening.The Assessing Officer (Ao)Completed The Assessment U/S.143(3)R.W.S 147 Of The Act,Determining Its Income At Rs. 41.46 Lakhs.

For Appellant: Dr. Paras JainFor Respondent: Dr. A.K. Nayak- DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 147oSection 148Section 2

…आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, मुंबई अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई “ई” खंडपीठ मुंबई खंडपीठ खंडपीठ मेमेमेमे खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“E”Bench Mumbai सव"ी राजे"",लेखा सद"य एवं अमरजीत "सह, "याियक सद"य Before S/Sh.Rajendra,Accountant Member and Amarjit Singh,Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./7364/Mum/2010,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 1999-2000 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Sukhsagar Traders Private Ltd. ITO-8(3)2 301A, Solaris-I, 72 Saki Vihar Road Aayakar Bhavan, M.K Road Andheri East , Mumbai Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 072. PAN:AAACS 6165 P (अपीलाथ" /Appell…

Sree Seshachala Builders Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 975/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Mar 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. M. K. Biju, JCIT
Section 234

…certain services to its tenants. Therefore, the consideration received on account of services rendered to its tenants should be treated as business income. Relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Shambu Investment Private Limited (2003) 263 ITR 143 (SC), the CIT(A) has disallowed the claim of the assessee and confirmed the order of the AO. 5. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and placed reliance upon the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. S. Mohan Kumar (HUF) in Income Tax Appeal No. 325/2009 dated 7.2.2011. Reliance was also placed upon the…

Sree Seshachala Builders Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 974/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Mar 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. M. K. Biju, JCIT
Section 234

…certain services to its tenants. Therefore, the consideration received on account of services rendered to its tenants should be treated as business income. Relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Shambu Investment Private Limited (2003) 263 ITR 143 (SC), the CIT(A) has disallowed the claim of the assessee and confirmed the order of the AO. 5. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and placed reliance upon the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. S. Mohan Kumar (HUF) in Income Tax Appeal No. 325/2009 dated 7.2.2011. Reliance was also placed upon the…

Asst CIT Cir 3, Mumbai vs. Shah Family Trust, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7692/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Sandeep Gosaini.T.A. No.7692/M/2014 (Assessment Year: 2010-2011) Acit, Circle-3, फनाभ/ M/S. Shah Family Trust, R.No.02, 6 Th Floor, Ashar It 4, Deepak Coop Housing Vs. Park, B-Wing, Wagle Indl. Society, Dr. Moose Road, Estate, Thane (W)-400604. Near Talao Pali, Thane (W)- 400602. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aaaas0987P (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri Rajesh Kumar, Cit-Dr प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Respondent By : Shri Subodh Rathnaparkhi

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Subodh Rathnaparkhi

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.7692/M/2014 (Assessment Year: 2010-2011) ACIT, Circle-3, फनाभ/ M/s. Shah Family Trust, R.No.02, 6 th Floor, Ashar IT 4, Deepak Coop Housing Vs. Park, B-Wing, Wagle Indl. Society, Dr. Moose Road, Estate, Thane (W)-400604. Near Talao Pali, Thane (W)- 400602. स्थामी रेखा सं./ PAN : AAAAS0987P (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant by : Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT-DR प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Respondent by : Shri Subodh Rathnaparkhi सु…

Priti Nimish Patel, Mumbai vs. DCIT - CC-25, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3069/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Mar 2017AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Ms. Arati Deshmukh-ARFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman-DR
Section 132Section 153CSection 24Section 254(1)

…e action of AO, against which assessee is in further appeal before us. 4.I do not find any merit in the orders of lower authorities, insofar as the issue is directly covered by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shambhu Investments Pvt. Ltd.,263 ITR 143, wherein it was held that income realised by owner by way of rental income from a building is assessable under the head income from house property.Merely because in the assessment year 2009-10,the assessee has not filed any appeal against the treatment of income offered under the head income from house property as business income,will not preclud…

Mount View Club & Resorts P. Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO 10(3)(4), Mumbai

ITA 1361/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Mount View Club & Income Tax Officer-10(3)(4), Resorts Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai बनाम/ 27, Mahavir Centre, Sector-17, Vs. Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400705 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aaccm5353M

…rder of the CIT(A). 9. The appeal of the assessee is dismissed.” We find that in the aforesaid order, the Tribunal has duly considered the factual matrix along with the decision from Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Shambhu Investments Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT 263 ITR 143 (SC) and another decision in Universal Plast Ltd. vs CIT (1999) 237 ITR 454 (SC) as well as the decision from the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs Mohiddin Hotels Pvt. Ltd. & 7 M/s Mount View Club & Ors. 200 CTR 329 and then reached to a conclusion. Neither contrary facts were brought to our notice by the assessee nor any…