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#673 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 366,005 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

The ACIT, Corp Circle-1(2), Kochi vs. M/S.Knowell Realtors India P. Ltd, Kochi

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals are allowed

ITA 193/COCH/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Santosh P. Abraham, AdvFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamuna Devi, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 268A

…n East India Housing & Land Development Trust Ltd. (supra), be assessable as business income. That the property being exploited is being used for commercial purposes would though matter little. This stands reiterated in Sultan Brothers (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1964] 51 ITR 353 (SC), a constitution bench decision by the Apex Court; it holding as: (pg. 358) “We think each case has to be looked at from a businessman's point of view to find out whether the letting was the doing of a business or the exploitation of his property by an owner. We do not further think that a thing can by its very nature be a commercial asset. A…

The ACIT, Corp Circle-1(2), Kochi vs. M/S.Knowell Realtors India P. Ltd, Kochi

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals are allowed

ITA 192/COCH/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Santosh P. Abraham, AdvFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamuna Devi, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 268A

Tulsidas V. Patel Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 5(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 556/MUM/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2023AY 2012-2013

For Appellant: Shri Prakash K. JotwaniFor Respondent: Ms. Richa Gulati

Section 143(3)(ii)Section 234B

…authorities were, in our judgment, right in holding that the income received by the appellant was assessable under section 9 of the Income-tax Act.” (Emphasis Supplied) 7 6.2. In the case of Sultan Brothers Private Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax: [1964] 51 ITR 353 (SC) the assessee, a private limited company, owned building constructed fitted up with furniture & fixtures which was given on lease for running a hotel and for certain other ancillary purposes. The assessee contended that the entire income should be assessed under Section 10 of the Income Tax Act 1922 as the income of a business. However, the Ho…

Infoparks Kerala, Cochin vs. The ACIT, Cochin

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 77/COCH/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr.AR

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

…endent finance department headed by a senior executive; enjoining private participation, are toward the same. There is no restrictive element in the scope of the term “business” to exclude an activity. The Apex Court in Sultan Brothers (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1964] 51 ITR 353 (SC), on an argument of rental income being a business, as what was being let was a commercial asset, clarified that a thing can not by its very nature be a commercial asset. A commercial asset is only an asset used in a business and nothing else, and business may be carried on with practically all things. Whenever the matter, arising on account o…

Infoparks Kerala, Trivandrum vs. The Jt Director of It (OSD) Exem), Cochin

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 76/COCH/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr.AR

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

Infoparks Kerala, Trivandrum vs. The Jt Director of It (OSD) Exem), Cochin

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 75/COCH/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr.AR

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

Coronet Hotel Services & Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-6(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 4613/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, Ld. CA &For Respondent: Shri Shankar Lal Verma

Section 142(1)Section 250

…t off of the unabsorbed depreciation carry forward from earlier years, preferred first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner. 4. The Ld. Commissioner by relying upon the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Sultan Brothers Pvt. Ltd. (1964) 51 ITR 353 (SC) and Shambhu Investment (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2003) 263 ITR 143, affirmed the action of the AO by treating the revenue receipts from operation of Hotel as “Income from House Property” by observing as under: • The appellant is the owner of a hotel resort and was running the hotel business till 2009. The appellant had been running in loss. After th…

Delta Colonizers Ltd., Newdelhi vs. DCIT Circle -7(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed on ground no

ITA 1423/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, Adv

Section 24

…ly reiterated assessee’s written submissions dated 02.03.2023 and submitted that as per various judgments and orders of Hon’ble Supreme Court & High Court and co-ordinate benches of the Tribunal including judgment in the case of Sultan Bros. Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT 51 ITR 353, judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Velankani Information Systems P. Ltd. 265 CTR 250 (Kar.) and orders co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal at Allahabad in the case of ITO vs. P.N. Shukla [1985] 14 ITD 105 (All.) and at Hyderabad in the case of DDIT vs. Shri G. Raghuram ITA No. 6/Hyd/2010, submitted that where the assess…

Saurashtra Trust, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1182/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Ms. Samruddhi Hande (Sr. AR)

Section 11Section 11(3)Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 24Section 263

…ents (249 ITR 47) wherein the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court while deciding the case of M/s. Shambu Investments (supra) applied the test as laid by the Hon’ble Constitution Bench (five Judges) of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sultan Brothers Pvt Ltd. (51 ITR 353) where in it was held that where the prime object of the assessee under the agreement was to let out the using of the furniture and fixtures and other common facilities for which rent was being paid month by month in addition to the security free advance covering the entire cost of the said immovable property, then that income there-from is an inc…

Chhattisgarh State Warehousing Corporation, Raipur vs. Assistant Commssioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(3), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 68/RPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur22 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri G D Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 68/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Chhattisgarh State Warehousing Corporation Head Office, Village-Jhanjh, Sector-24, Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan:Aaccc1774E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(3). Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Mahawar, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.K Mishra, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…perties And Investments Ltd. (supra), has considered similar issue and has also considered various other Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision on the issue including that of the Constitutional Bench judgment in the case of Sultan Brothers Pvt. Ltd. v/s CIT, [1964] 51 ITR 353 (SC). In this case, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:- "The appellant-assessee is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. Its main objective, as stated in the memorandum of association, is to acquire the properties in the city of Madras (now Chennai) and to let out those properties. The assessee had rented out such properties an…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-04 vs. M/S Microsoft India (R and D) Pvt Ltd

ITA - 509 / 2022HC Delhi06 Dec 2022

Bench: The Next Date Of Hearing.

Section 56

…$~42 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 509/2022 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-04..... Appellant Through: Mr Abhishek Maratha, Sr Standing Counsel. Versus M/S MICROSOFT INDIA (R ANDD) PVT LTD ..... Respondent Through: Mr Nageshwar Rao, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU O R D E R % 06.12.2022 [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)] CM APPL.52444/2022 1. Allowed, subject to the appellant filing legible copies of the annexures, at least three days before t…

ACIT Central-2 Indore, Indore vs. Shri .Gaurav Tekriwal, Indore

In the result, this appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 62/IND/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Acit, Central -2 Shri Gaurav Tekriwal Indore बनाम/ 204, Princess Valley, South Tukoganj, Indore Vs. (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Acppt 1628 Q Assessee By Shri Anil Kamal Garg, Arpit Gaur, Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 21.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21.11.2022

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 54FSection 55(2)(a)Section 57

…le Apex Court in the case of United Commercial Bank Ltd. us. CIT (1957) 32 ITR 688 (SC); again in the case of East India Housing and Event Development Trust, Ltd. vs. CIT (1961) 42 ITR 49 (SC); and again in the case of Sultan Brothers Pvt, Ltd. vs. CIT (1964) 51 ITR 353 (SC) were pleased to hold that if an item of income fa1ls specifically under one head, it has to be charged under that head only and no other head. The Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of CIT vs. General Industrial Society Ltd. (2003) 262 ITR I (Cal.) also held that if a particular income is chargeable under one head, it cannot be comput…

Shri Premkumar Menon, Chennai vs. ACIT, Ncc-17(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3070/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3070/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Premkumar Menon, The Asst. Commissioner Of “Menon Eternity Building” Vs. Income Tax, (10Th Floor), No.165, Non Corporate Circle-17(1), St. Mary’S Road, Alwarpet, Chennai. Chennai – 600 018. [Pan: Aiapp-7309-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.09.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.09.2022

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 24

…d to have been realised as a result of rendering the services by the assessee should have been brought to tax under section 12(4). For that contention he relied on the decision of this court in Sultan Brothers Private Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1964] 51 ITR 353 (SC) : TC13R. 796. The High Court after reassessing the evidence on record has also taken the view that there was only one source of income and that source was of letting out the premises to the tenants. Mr. Manchanda contended, and the High Court has accepted that contention, that the authorities under the Act have not properly construed the leas…

M/S Subex Limited vs. The Deputy Commissioner of

Appeal is allowed

ITA/42/2017HC Karnataka26 Aug 2022

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,M G UMA

Section 10Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 260

…fully equipped and furnished to run a hotel. He claimed that entire income should be assessed under Section 10 of the Act or in the alternative under Section 12 of the Act. In respect 7 (1964) 51 ITR 353(SC) I.T.A No.42/2017 12 of building, the AO assessed under Section 9 and in respect of hire received from furniture and fixture, he assessed under Section 12 of the Act. The Tribunal held that allowanc…

Flotherm Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, CC-2(1), Chennai

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 2998/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Murugaboopathy (Advocate) &For Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT)–Ld. DR

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 22Section 24Section 56(1)Section 57

…y one of these agreements and can still continue with the other agreement. The assessee’s submissions were subjected to remand proceedings. 3.2 The Ld. CIT(A), in terms of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sultan Brothers (P.) Ltd. V/s CIT (51 ITR 353), noted that agreement dated 22.02.2010 to let out factory building and agreement dated 01.03.2010 to let out building were entered as separate ITA Nos. 2997 & 2998/Chny/2019 agreement. However, the tenures as well as lease incremental were exactly on the same line indicating that the two agreements were to be continued together. The intention of…

Flotherm Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, CC-2(1), Chennai

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 2997/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Murugaboopathy (Advocate) &For Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT)–Ld. DR

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 22Section 24Section 56(1)Section 57

Nasser S Al Hajri Corporation Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai

ITA 5140/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Nasser S Al Hajri Acit, Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Circle – 10(3)(1) & Unit No.2, 2Nd Floor, Cit(A)-17, A-Wing Timesquare, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Andheri Kurla Road, M.K. Road, Opp. Mittal Estate, Mumbai - 400020 Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400 059 Pan: Aadcn 7852M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews, D.R

Section 57

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI BASKARAN BR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/s. Nasser S Al Hajri ACIT, Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Circle – 10(3)(1) and Unit No.2, 2nd Floor, CIT(A)-17, A-Wing Timesquare, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Andheri Kurla Road, M.K. Road, Opp. Mittal Estate, Mumbai - 400020 Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400 059 PAN: AADCN 7852M (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Bhupendra Shah, A.R. Revenue by : Shri C.T. Mathews, D.R. Date of Hearing : 14 . 06 . 2022 Date of Pronouncement : 05 . 07 . 2022…

M/S. Embassy Knowledge Infrastructure Projects Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 2(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 982/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjay Kumar S.R., CIT –DR

Section 143(2)Section 24Section 3

…ative factor to arrive at a conclusion that the income is to be treated as income from business. Such a question would depend upon the circumstances of each case. It is so held by the Constitution Bench of this court in Sultan Brothers (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1964] 5 SCR 807* and we reproduce the relevant portion thereof: 9 ITA No.982/Bang/2019. M/s.Embassy Knowledge Infrastructure Projects Pvt.Ltd. "We think each case has to be looked at from a businessman's point of view to find out whether the letting was the doing of a business or the exploitation of his property by an owner. We do not further think that a thing…

M/S. Vectra Advanced Engineering Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 7(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2025/BANG/2018[2010]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jan 2022

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Nitish Ranjan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sankarganesh K, JCIT (DR)

Section 57

…ed the material on record. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd. [(2004) 266 ITR 685 (Mad.)] after referring to the Hon’ble Apex Court judgment in the case of Sultan Brothers Private Limited v. CIT [(1964) 51 ITR 353 (SC)] has observed as under:- “Although it was held by the Constitution Bench in the case of Sultan Brothers (1964) 51 ITR 353 (SC) that whether a particular letting is business has to be decided in the circumstances of each case and that each case has to be looked at from a businessman’s point of view to find out whether the letting was the doing…

Shri Shanthilal Movji Bhai, Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward - 6 (4), Chennai

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

ITA 1346/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1344, 1345 & 1346/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Mr. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 22Section 23Section 27

…der certain circumstances, where the income may have been derived from letting out of the premises, it can still be treated as business income if letting out of the premises itself is the business of the assessee. As held in Sultan Bros.(P) Ltd. v. CIT [1964] 51 ITR 353 (SC), each case has to be looked at from a businessman's point of view to find out whether the letting was the doing of a business or the exploitation of his property by an owner. It is to be seen as to whether the activity in question was in the nature of business by which it could be said that income received by the appellant was to be treated a…