Sri Hanuman Sugar & Industries Ltd. v. CIT

266 ITR 106High Court2004#9969 most cited

What is Sri Hanuman Sugar & Industries Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

An assessee's intention regarding a temporary vs. final parting with a factory is a factual determination. This determination is not subject to res judicata, allowing authorities to reach different conclusions in subsequent years based on new evidence.

11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Sri Hanuman Sugar & Industries Ltd. v. CIT · 266 ITR 106 · assessment procedure · res judicata · income tax assessment · factual determination · parting with factory

Also reported as

252 Taxmann 191

Sections most often in play

Section 10Section 12Section 143(3)Section 22Section 24Section 32ABSection 56(2)(iii)Section 57(ii)

Judgments citing Sri Hanuman Sugar & Industries Ltd. v. CIT

Palmshore Hotels Private Limited, Thiruvananthapuram vs. Asst Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(), Thiruvananthapuram

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 983/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev R., CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., VP AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM ITA No. 983 /Coch/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Palmshore Hotels Pvt. Ltd. .......... Appellant Light House Road, Vizhinjam Thiruvananthapuram 695521 [PAN: AABCP3814F] vs. ACIT, Circle-10, Thiruvananthapuram .......... Respondent Appellant by: Shri Rajeev R., CA Respondent by: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 15.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 23.06.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, AM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, De…

M/S Active Securities Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

The appeals are allowed

ITA 2335/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Puneet Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 24

…ger duration of the agreement could have been for many reasons." To similar effect are the following decisions:  CEPT v. Shri Lakshi Silk Mills Ltd 20 ITR 451 (SC)  Maltex Malsters Ltd. CIT 243 Taxman 581 (P&H)  Sri Hanuman Sugar & Industries Ltd. vs. CIT: 266 ITR 106 (Cal)  Palmshore Hotels (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT: 252 Taxman 191 (Ker)  Hyderabad Distilleries & Wineries Pvt. Ltd. vS. ACIT (Del ITAT) (Refer Pg 22-43, r.f. @ Pg 38) 9. In view of the aforesaid, it was submitted that rental income received from letting out of a property due to difficult market conditions in the real estate market and with no intentio…

Dodla International Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, Corporate Range-1, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3155/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Feb 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3155/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Dodla International Ltd., The Acit, 4/54, Rainbow Kasturi Iii Main V. Corporate Range-1 , Road, R.A. Puram, Chennai. Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aabcd6591R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Suresh Periasamy, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.02.2021

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Periasamy, JCIT

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी ,"या"यक सद"य एवं "ी जी मंजुनाथ, लेखा सद"य के सम" . BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 3155/CHNY/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/s. Dodla International Ltd., The ACIT, 4/54, Rainbow Kasturi III Main v. Corporate Range-1 , Road, R.A. Puram, Chennai. Chennai – 600 028. PAN: AABCD6591R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by…

The ACIT, Cochin vs. M/S.Ptl Enterprises Ltd, Cochin

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

ITA 84/COCH/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Jul 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Mritunjaya Sharma, CIT-DRFor Respondent: S/Sri.Joseph Marcose, Sr.Advocate &
Section 56(2)(ii)

…s let out the land, plant and machinery to a third party for a limited period and receiving rent, such rent is to be treated as income from business. The cases relied upon by the assessee such as 20 ITR 451, 169 ITR 597, 195 ITR 3525, 138 ITR 18, 116 ITR 781, 266 ITR 106, 166 ITR 211, 211 ITR 370, 164 ITR 288 and 237 ITR 454 (mentioned in para 16 of this order) support the case of the assessee. In all these cases, the Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High Courts held that rental income received for a limited period by way of letting out plant and machinery because the assessee was unable to operate on account of…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 2(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 781/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singh

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(vii)

…d upon the following judicial precedents and submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) was right in deleting the addition: 1. CIT vs Citi Bank N.A. Civil Appeal No.1549 of 2006 2. American Express International Banking Corp vs CIT 258 UTR 601(Bom) 3. CIT vs Deustche Bank 266 ITR 106-107 (SC) 4. CIT vs HDFC Bank Ltd 49 Taxmann.com 335, 366 ITR 505 (Bom) 5. Indian Bank vs DCIT 44 Taxmann.com 339 (Mad) 6. DCIT vs Dena Bank ITA No.1407/M/16 & 1408/M/16 7. DCB Bank Ltd vs. ACIT ITA No.820/M/14 & 615/M/14 8. ACIT vs Dena Bank ITA No.5259/M/14 9. DCIT vs Bank of Baroda ITA No.5605 & 5604/M/16 10. CBDT circular 28 of 2015 CBDT circu…

The ACIT, Cochin vs. M/S.Ptl Enterprises Ltd, Cochin

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 162/COCH/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Alok MitraFor Respondent: Sri.Abraham Joseph Markose
Section 56(2)(ii)

…s let out the land, plant and machinery to a third party for a limited period and receiving rent, such rent is to be treated as income from business. The cases relied upon by the assessee such as 20 ITR 451, 169 ITR 597, 195 ITR 3525, 138 ITR 18, 116 ITR 781, 266 ITR 106, 166 ITR 211, 211 ITR 370, 164 ITR 288 and 237 ITR 454 (mentioned in para 16 of this order) support the case of the assessee. In all these cases, the Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High Courts held that rental income received for a limited period by way of letting out plant and machinery because the assessee was unable to operate on account of…

The ACIT, Cochin vs. M/S.Ptl Enterprises Ltd, Cochin

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 161/COCH/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Alok MitraFor Respondent: Sri.Abraham Joseph Markose
Section 56(2)(ii)

…s let out the land, plant and machinery to a third party for a limited period and receiving rent, such rent is to be treated as income from business. The cases relied upon by the assessee such as 20 ITR 451, 169 ITR 597, 195 ITR 3525, 138 ITR 18, 116 ITR 781, 266 ITR 106, 166 ITR 211, 211 ITR 370, 164 ITR 288 and 237 ITR 454 (mentioned in para 16 of this order) support the case of the assessee. In all these cases, the Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High Courts held that rental income received for a limited period by way of letting out plant and machinery because the assessee was unable to operate on account of…

The ACIT, Cochin vs. M/S.Ptl Enterprises Ltd, Cochin

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 160/COCH/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Alok MitraFor Respondent: Sri.Abraham Joseph Markose
Section 56(2)(ii)

…s let out the land, plant and machinery to a third party for a limited period and receiving rent, such rent is to be treated as income from business. The cases relied upon by the assessee such as 20 ITR 451, 169 ITR 597, 195 ITR 3525, 138 ITR 18, 116 ITR 781, 266 ITR 106, 166 ITR 211, 211 ITR 370, 164 ITR 288 and 237 ITR 454 (mentioned in para 16 of this order) support the case of the assessee. In all these cases, the Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High Courts held that rental income received for a limited period by way of letting out plant and machinery because the assessee was unable to operate on account of…

DCIT, Circle-10(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Sree Automotive Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

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

ITA 1392/KOL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

For Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR

…receding assessment years. Since there is no change in the circumstances as prevailing in those assessment years with the assessment year under appeal, the grievance of the appellant is upheld. In the case of Sri Hanuman Sugar & Industries Ltd. vs. CIT (2004) 266 ITR 106 (Cal), it was observed as under: ­ "In subsequent years, if 'on materials available, the authorities concerned come to a finding on then available facts that arrangement of lease by the assessee did not depict any intention of temporary arrangement and in fact it was a final parting with the factory, appropriate decision could be taken on such fi…

ACIT 11(1), Mumbai vs. Satish B Kaushik, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA N0

ITA 5601/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4832/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) Mr. Satish B. Kaushik, बनाम/ The Asst. Commissioner Of 803-04, A Wing, Income Tax – 11(1), V. Raj Classique Chs Ltd Yari Aayakar Bhavan, Road, Mumbai. Versova, Andheri (West), Mumbai. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aampk1640E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan (D.R.)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)

…amount of investment. Section 23(1)(b) of the Act does not specify any such formula for determination of annual letting value. ITA 4832 & 5601/Mum/2012 20 The assessee relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Bharat Ram & Sons, 266 ITR 106 (SC) and requested to consider the ALV @4% of half the book value from which deduction of Municipal tax and standard deduction should be allowed u/s 24(a) of the Act. The CIT(A) after considering the submission of the assessee directed the A.O. to recalculate the income from house property by taking ALV @8% of book value of above properties vide…

Satish B. Kaushik, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 11(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA N0

ITA 4832/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4832/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) Mr. Satish B. Kaushik, बनाम/ The Asst. Commissioner Of 803-04, A Wing, Income Tax – 11(1), V. Raj Classique Chs Ltd Yari Aayakar Bhavan, Road, Mumbai. Versova, Andheri (West), Mumbai. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aampk1640E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan (D.R.)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)

…amount of investment. Section 23(1)(b) of the Act does not specify any such formula for determination of annual letting value. ITA 4832 & 5601/Mum/2012 20 The assessee relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Bharat Ram & Sons, 266 ITR 106 (SC) and requested to consider the ALV @4% of half the book value from which deduction of Municipal tax and standard deduction should be allowed u/s 24(a) of the Act. The CIT(A) after considering the submission of the assessee directed the A.O. to recalculate the income from house property by taking ALV @8% of book value of above properties vide…