Shambu Investment Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

95 ITR 419High Court1974#14566 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 115BBE Section 143(3)Section 194I(b)Section 24 Section 294 Section 69A

Judgments citing Shambu Investment Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

GOWRI SHANKAR GUPTA,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), HYDERABAD

ITA 514/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 May 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sashank Dundu, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.Praveen, DR

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 294Section 69A

…als) has allowed the claim of the assessee that the receipt of Rs.51,864 be assessed as income from house property. In appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal has considered the decision of this Court in the case of CIT v. Kanak Investments ( P.) Ltd. [1974] 95 ITR 419, and also the decision of this Court in CIT v. Modee Mfg. Co. (P.) Ltd. [1986] 159 ITR 270, and reversed the view taken by the Commissioner (Appeals) holding that letting out the hoardings on the top of the roof to display the advertisements is not income from the house property as hoardings do not form part of the building which is separable from…

LPR COMPANY PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 2375/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2012-13 Lpr Company Pvt. Ltd., Versus Acit, Circle 15(1), Publicis House, 1-2, Aaram Bagh, New Delhi. Panchkuian Road, New Delhi. Pan: Aaacl0297R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Amarjit Singh, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Virendra Singh, Sr. DR

…isions : (i). M/s. Kirloskar Systems Ltd. vs. ACIT (ITAT, Bangalore Bench)(ITA Nos. 720 & 721/Bang/2011- order dated 29.11.2013). 4 (ii). CIT vs. Model Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 270(Cal.) (iii). CIT vs. Kanak Investments (Pvt) Ltd., (1974) 95 ITR 419 (Cal). 6. Learned departmental representative strongly relied upon the observations of the Assessing Officer and learned Commissioner (Appeals). 7. We have considered rival submissions and perused the materials on record. It is observed, the assessee owns a property/building at 1-2 Aram Bagh, Community Centre, Panchkuian Road, New Delhi. It i…

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)

…s 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 673 (SC) and Rayala Corporation (P) Ltd. For this Hon’ble Supr…

D.C.I.T CIR - 6,KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs. M/S TURNER MORRISON LTD., KOLKATA

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

ITA 297/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

…uded charges for electric current, for the use of lifts, for the supply of hot and cold water, or the arrangements for scavenging, for providing watch and ward facilities as well as other amenities, 7. In the case of CIT v. Kanak Investments (P.) Ltd. [1974} 95 ITR 419 this Court held that where composite rent is received by the assessee from its tenant, it should be split up and the amount attributable to the building only should be computed under section 9(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 ('the 1922 Act') while the amount attributable to the amenities provided by the assessee to the tenants should be asse…

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

…s 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 673 (SC) and Rayala Corporation (P) Ltd. For this Hon’ble Supreme…

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

…s 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 673 (SC) and Rayala Corporation (P) Ltd. For this Hon’ble Supreme…

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

…s 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 673 (SC) and Rayala Corporation (P) Ltd. For this Hon’ble Supreme…