How many judgments cite Sultan Bros. (P) Ltd. v. CIT?

148 judgments on BharatTax cite Sultan Bros. (P) Ltd. v. CIT (51 ITR 353), spanning 2009 to 2026.

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

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 22, Section 24, Section 132, Section 143(2), Section 14A.

Sultan Bros. (P) Ltd. v. CIT

51 ITR 353Supreme Court of India1964#674 most cited

What is Sultan Bros. (P) Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Income derived from letting out property is classified as business income only if the letting activity constitutes a business from a businessman's perspective, rather than mere exploitation of property by an owner. The company's object clause is not the sole determinative factor in this assessment.

148

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Sultan Bros. (P) Ltd. v. CIT · Section 22 · Section 2(13) · income from letting property · business income · income from house property · businessman's point of view · object clause · exploitation of property · commercial asset definition

Also reported as

5 SCR 807

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 22 Section 24 Section 132 Section 143(2)Section 14A Section 194-I Section 2(13)

Issues it is cited on

recognised provident fund section 50b section 43b(f)approved gratuity fund section 40a(9)section 211 wholly and exclusively for business section 35d slump sale section 32(1)(ii)section 24(a)domestic company

Judgments citing Sultan Bros. (P) Ltd. v. CIT

H.L. MALHOTRA AMD COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 12(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3405/DEL/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 24

…M/s H.L. Malhotra and Company Private Limited, B-30, Ground Floor, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi – 110 065. PAN: AAACH0836J. (Appellant) Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-12(1), New Delhi. Assessee by Revenue by Date of hearing Date of pronouncement : : Shri Vibhu Gupta, Advocate. Ms. Ankush Kalra, Senior DR. : : 11.03.2026 13.03.2026 ORDER PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP 1. This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of learned CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi in appeal No.CIT(A), Delhi-16/10189/2013-14 dated 26th March, 2025. Assessment was framed by the DCIT, Circle-12(1), New Delhi for the assessment yea…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I NOIDA, NOIDA vs. M/S ADVANT IT PARK PRIVATE LIMITED , DELHI

Appeal is allowed and order of the High Court is set aside

ITA 5334/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)

…charges and maintenance charges was shown under the head "Income from Business or Profession". Ld. AR submits that lower authorities have placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sultan Brothers Pvt. Ltd. reported in [1994] 51 ITR 353 (SC) and CBDT Circular No.16/2017 for treating the business income as income from house property and income from other sources. Ld. AR submits that aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court has been discussed and distinguished by the apex court in the case of Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. vs. CIT, Central-III, Tamil Nadu [2015] 56 taxman…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, NOIDA, NOIDA vs. M/S ADVANT IT PARK PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 5332/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)

VEERPRABHU AUTO PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CC - 2(4), KOL, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1218/KOL/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2026AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 250

…n appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee by holding as under: “The main object of the appellant is with respect to auto parts and has no relation to dealings in real estate. In the case of Sultan Brothers (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (1964) 51 ITR 353 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clarified that merely an entry in the object clause showing a particular object would not be the determinative factor to arrive at an conclusion whether the income is to be treated as income from business and such a question would depend upon the circumstances of each case, viz., whether a particular business is…

DCIT, CIRCLE -3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. NORD ANGLIA EDUCATION INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue, viz

ITA 314/VIZ/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.

For Appellant: 1.Shri Karnjot Singh KhuranaFor Respondent: Shri Badicala Yadagiri, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

…was to be brought to tax as “business income” and not as “income from house Private Limited vs. DCIT property”. The Hon’ble Apex Court, had after referring to the dicta laid down by the Constitution Bench in the case of Sultan Brothers (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (1964) 51 ITR 353 (SC), observed as under: “11. We are conscious of the aforesaid dicta laid down in the Constitution Bench judgment. It is for this reason, we have, at the beginning of this judgment, stated the circumstances of the present case from which we arrive at irresistible conclusion that in this case, letting of the properties is in fact is the business o…

DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. NORD ANGLIA EDUCATION INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue, viz

ITA 206/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.

For Appellant: 1.Shri Karnjot Singh KhuranaFor Respondent: Shri Badicala Yadagiri, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

ARUN ENGINEERING UDYOG PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL) - 2, , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 786/KOL/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Sept 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2021-22 Arun Engineering Udyog Pvt. Ltd……………………………….……….……Appellant 151/A, Cotton Street, Burrabazar, Kol - 700007. [Pan: Aalca8127A] Vs. Pcit(Central)-2, Kolkata…………………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Raja Sengupta, Cit- Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 04, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 11, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 14.02.2025 Of The Principal Cit(Central), Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Ld. Pcit”] Exercising His Revision Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”].

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 263

…essee has filed registered lease deed, lease agreement. The ld. AR has also enclosed the audited accounts, ITR return, ITR-V for the assessment year 2021-22. He has cited a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sultan Bros. (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (1964) 5 SCR 807 and also filed a decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Chennai Properties & Investment Ltd., reported in 373 ITR 673 and in the case of Royla Corporation Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (2016) 386 ITR 500 (SC). 2 Arun Engineering Udyog Pvt. Ltd 3.1 So far as the submission of the unsecured loan taken is concerned, the submission of the ld. AR is that i…

DECORUM INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL) - 2, , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 785/KOL/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Sept 2025AY 2021-2022

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 263

…ness showing a particular object would not be the determinative\nfactor to arrive at a conclusion that the income is to be treated as income\nfrom business. He has cited a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the\ncase of Sultan Bros. (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (1964) 5 SCR 807 and also filed a\ndecision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chennai Properties &\nInvestment Ltd., reported in 373 ITR 673 and in the case of Royla\nCorporation Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (2016) 386 ITR 500 (SC).\n3.1 So far as the issue regarding of the unsecured loan taken, the\nsubmission of the ld. AR is that in the course of assessment proceedings…

ARIHANT DEVELOPERS ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -1, KALYAN

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are\ndismissed

ITA 3398/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: \nShri K. Gopal & Akhilesh Deshmukh, ARsFor Respondent: \nShri Aditya Rai (Sr. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 22Section 24

…n2,82,16,861/- & Income from sales\nof Rs.96,36,300/-.\n4.5 It is also pertinent to mention here that Hon'ble Apex Court in their\ndecision in case of Raj Dadarkar & Associates has reiterated the view taken\nby the Court in Sultan Bros. (P) Ltd. Vs CIT [1964] 51 ITR 353 (SC) in\nwhich constitution bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:\n“7. We think each case has to be looked at from a businessman's point\nof view to find out whether the letting was the doing of a business or\nthe exploitation of his property by an owner. We do not further think\nthat a thing can by its very nature be a commercial asset. A…

ARIHANT DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -1, KALYAN

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are\ndismissed

ITA 3397/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: \nShri K. Gopal & Akhilesh Deshmukh, ARsFor Respondent: \nShri Aditya Rai (Sr. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 22Section 24

ARIHANT DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -1, KALYAN

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are\ndismissed

ITA 3396/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: \nShri K. Gopal & Akhilesh Deshmukh, ARsFor Respondent: \nShri Aditya Rai (Sr. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 22Section 24

ARIHANT DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -1 , KALYAN

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are\ndismissed

ITA 3395/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

For Appellant: \nShri K. Gopal & Akhilesh Deshmukh, ARsFor Respondent: \nShri Aditya Rai (Sr. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 22Section 24

PANKAJ ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. DY. / ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 41(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

ITA 4365/MUM/2025[2014-015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2025AY 2014-015

For Appellant: Shri S.L. JainFor Respondent: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr.DR

Section 143(2)Section 250

…rniture, the income from such letting, if\nit is not chargeable to income tax under the head “Income from Business”, be\nchargeable under the head “Income from Other Sources”. We find that the\nHon'ble Supreme Court in Sultan Brothers (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT [1964] 51 ITR 353\n(SC), while dealing with section 12(3) and section 12(4) of the Income Tax\nAct, 1922, which corresponds to section 56 of the Act, observed as follows:\n\"It seems to us that the inseparability referred to in sub-section (4) is an\ninseparability arising from the intention of the parties. That intention may be\nascertained by framing the followin…

DCIT, RANGE-3, LUCKNOW vs. M/S WELLDONE INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 406/LKW/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh.Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y.2017-18 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S Welldone Infrastructure Range-3, Lucknow Private Limited, Lucknow Pan:Aaacw6354Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. B.P. Yadav, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. Amit Singh Chauhan, Addl (Cit) & Sh. Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 10.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.04.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Lucknow Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Allowing The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Ao Under Section 143(3) On 19.12.2019. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Lucknow Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.2,26,72,571/- Without Appreciate The Fact That The Assessee Is Involved In The Business Of Developing Properties & Selling It & Is Earning Rental Income Which Is Incidental To The "Revenue From Business Operations" Of The Assessee. 2. Ld. Cit(A) Had Erred In Law & On Facts Ignoring The Fact That The Assessee, While Filing Original Return Of Income Had Itself Considered That Rental Are In The Nature Of Revenue From Business Operations.

For Appellant: Sh. B.P. Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Singh Chauhan, Addl (CIT) & Sh

Section 143(3)Section 22Section 250

…in the case of Raj Dadarkar& Associates vs. ACIT (2017) 394 ITR 592 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had taken a similar view. The assesse also quoted from the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sultan Brothers (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT (1964) 51 ITR 353 and decisions of various Hon’ble High Courts and Tribunals in the cases of Shambhu Investment (P.) Ltd., vs. CIT (2003) 263 ITR 143, Atma Ram Properties P. Ltd. vs. JCIT (2006) 102 TTJ (Delhi)[SB], CIT vs. Gundecha Builders (2019) 102 taxman.com 27 (Bom) and ACIT vs. Ashapura Developers (ITAT Mumbai)wherein all the Courts and Tribunals had held th…

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. M/s Pokarna Limited

The appeals are dismissed

ITTA/273/2012HC Telangana18 Feb 2025

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

Section 260A

…in the case of East India Housing & Land Development, Section 12(4) of the old Act did not come for consideration. However, a constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Sultan Brothers (P) Ltd. –vs- Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (1964) 51 ITR 353 (SC) evolved a concept of inseparability. The concept of inseparability has been explained as under: “12.(1) The tax shall be payable by an assessee under the head ‘Income from other sources’ in respect of income, profits and gains of every kind which may be included in his total income (if not included under any of the preceding heads…

Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Sri N.Sai Baba Naidu

ITTA/319/2012HC Telangana06 Jan 2025

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 56Section 56(2)(iii)

…e was chargeable to tax under the residual head. According to him, it was the intention of the parties that the letting should be a composite letting. He relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sultan Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT, (1964) 51 ITR 353 and several other decisions cited in the assessment order. In this view of the matter, he brought the rental income of `1,76,40,000 to tax under the head “income from other sources” with the result that the deductions under Section 24 claimed by the assessee on the footing that the rental income was assessable under the head “income from hou…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), INDORE., INDORE vs. MP ENTERTAINMENT AND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, INDORE

Appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit

ITA 338/IND/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2015-16 Acit, M.P. Entertainment & 1(1), Developers Private Ltd., Indore. 94-101, 4Th Floor, बनाम/ C-21 Malls, Vs. Indore (Revenue /Appellant) (Assessee /Respondent) Pan: Aaecm8668D Assessee By Shri Anil Kamal Garg, Ca Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 23.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 11.10.2024

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, इंदौर "ायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2015-16 ACIT, M.P. Entertainment and 1(1), Developers Private Ltd., Indore. 94-101, 4th Floor, बनाम/ C-21 Malls, Vs. Indore (Revenue /Appellant) (Assessee /Respondent) PAN: AAECM8668D Assessee by Shri Anil Kamal Garg, CA Revenue by Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, CIT DR Date of Hearing 23.09.2024 Date of Pronouncement 11.10.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by appeal-order dated 10.07.2023 passed…

TODI INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 8(3)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 895/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 22Section 37

…amir Bhojwani v. ACIT (ITA No. 331/M/2015) (Mumbai Trib.) ITO v. Rasiklal & Co. (P) Ltd. [2008] 119 ITD 61 (Mumbai Trib.) 7. Ld. Counsel submitted that the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sultan Brothers (P.) Ltd. v. СІТ [1964] 51 ITR 353 (SC) (being the decision of Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court) should be followed. Since this is a case of composite/ inseparable letting, the income ought to be taxed as business income or at worst income from other sources. Income from composite/ inseparable letting cannot in law be treated as income from house property. 8. During the course…

E M C PROJECTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1063/KOL/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Aug 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 1063/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Emc Projects Pvt. Limited,………………..………Appellant 2, Robinson Street, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata-700017 [Pan:Aaace7218F] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,………Respondent Circle-7(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Jitendra Kantilal Surti, Jcit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 12, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 20, 2024 O R D E R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…ctional High Court in the case of Shambhu Investment Pvt. Limited 9 EMC Projects Pvt. Limited reported in 263 ITR 143. Hon’ble Court, however, considering the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sultan Brothers Pvt. Limited -vs.- CIT [1964] 51 ITR 353 (SC), has propounded certain tests. We deem it appropriate to take note the discussion made by the Hon’ble Court on this issue, which reads as under:- “11. In the light of the above, let us now apply such test in the present case. From the copy of the agreement produced before us it appears that the assessee has let out the furnished office at a m…

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

…which they yield but as a kind of circulating capital leading to profits of business, which profits may be either enjoyed- or put back into the business to acquire more properties for further profitable exploitation." 7. In Sultan Bros (P.) Ltd. v. CIT[1964] 51 ITR 353 the Supreme Court held that: "It seems to us that the inseparability referred to in sub-section (4) is an inseparability arising from the intention of the parties. That intention may be ascertained by framing the following questions : Was it the intention in making the lease-and it matters not whether there is one lease or two, that is, separate l…

Showing 1–20 of 148 · Page 1 of 8

...