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 22Section 24Section 132Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 194-ISection 2(13)

Issues it is cited on

recognised provident fundsection 50bsection 43b(f)approved gratuity fundsection 40a(9)section 211wholly and exclusively for businesssection 35dslump salesection 32(1)(ii)section 24(a)domestic company

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

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

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

ITA 1345/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

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…

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

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

ITA 1344/CHNY/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Nov 2021AY 2009-10

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…

ACIT, Circle- 29(1), New Delhi vs. Thatai Consultancy Services LLP, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeal of the revenue as well as cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 6515/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleasstt. Year 2015-16 Acit Vs. Thatai Consultancy Services Llp Cent. Circle 29(1) B-16, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi. Phase-Ii, New Delhi – 110 020 Pan Aajft1317Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri U.N. Marwah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Bhopal Singh, Sr. DR
Section 22Section 24Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(iii)

…he AO came to the conclusion that the rental income was of the nature of the composite rent and he invoked the provisions of section 56(2)(iii) of the Act relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sultan Brothers P. Ltd. v CIT (1964) 51 ITR 353 (SC). The AO inter alia referred to clause (i) of para 5.2.1 of Leave and License 3 CO No. 221/Del/2018 agreement dated 06/01/2014 in respect of common area maintenance charges and clause (ii) of para 5.2.1 in respect of electricity charges and other utilities. The AO disallowed the claim of deduction of Rs.2,44,02,060/- claimed u/s 24 and inter…

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

The appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 2270/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Nov 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.2267 To 2270/Chny/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2014-15 To 2016-17) Shri Shanthilal Movji Bhai Thakker The Income Tax Officer, बनाम/ 88/A, Dr.Allagappa Road, Corporate Ward-6(4), Vs. Purasawalkam, Chennai-600 084. Chennai. थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacpt-9083-C (अपीलाथ-/Appellant) : (01थ- / Respondent) अपीलाथ-कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri D.Anand- Advocate 01थ-कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri G.Johnson – Ld. Addl. Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 12/10/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 03/11/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri D.Anand- AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.Johnson – Ld. Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 269USection 27Section 36(1)(iii)

…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…

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

The appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 2269/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Nov 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.2267 To 2270/Chny/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2014-15 To 2016-17) Shri Shanthilal Movji Bhai Thakker The Income Tax Officer, बनाम/ 88/A, Dr.Allagappa Road, Corporate Ward-6(4), Vs. Purasawalkam, Chennai-600 084. Chennai. थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacpt-9083-C (अपीलाथ-/Appellant) : (01थ- / Respondent) अपीलाथ-कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri D.Anand- Advocate 01थ-कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri G.Johnson – Ld. Addl. Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 12/10/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 03/11/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri D.Anand- AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.Johnson – Ld. Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 269USection 27Section 36(1)(iii)

…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…

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

The appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 2268/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.2267 To 2270/Chny/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2014-15 To 2016-17) Shri Shanthilal Movji Bhai Thakker The Income Tax Officer, बनाम/ 88/A, Dr.Allagappa Road, Corporate Ward-6(4), Vs. Purasawalkam, Chennai-600 084. Chennai. थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacpt-9083-C (अपीलाथ-/Appellant) : (01थ- / Respondent) अपीलाथ-कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri D.Anand- Advocate 01थ-कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri G.Johnson – Ld. Addl. Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 12/10/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 03/11/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri D.Anand- AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.Johnson – Ld. Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 269USection 27Section 36(1)(iii)

…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…

ACIT (OSD) Corporate Circle 4(2), Chennai vs. Kka Buildtech Private Limited, Chennai

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

ITA 1159/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1159/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Mr. Suresh Periasamy, JCITFor Respondent: Mr. R. Sricharan, C.A
Section 22

…te Head of Income applicable in such cases would be 'Income from Business'.” 12. The Hon’ble Jurisdiction High Court has considered the decision of the constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sultans Brothers (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1964] 51 ITR 353 (SC) and observed that where the income may have been derived from letting out of the premises, it can be treated as business income, if letting out of the premises itself is the business of the assessee. It is further observed that whether the income from house property or business income, it has to be decided based on the facts and circumsta…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Hyderabad vs. Cache Properties Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 124/HYD/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Respondent: Sri Rohit Mujumdar, D.R
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 263

…erty has been given on rent along with car parking place and electricity supply amenities and the rent has been received inclusive of all the facilities. He relied upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sultan Brothers (P.) Ltd., Vs. CIT [51 ITR 353] (SC), Rayala Corporation (P.) Ltd., Vs. ACIT [386 ITR 500] (SC) and Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd., Vs. CIT [373 ITR 673] (SC) to hold that where the intention of assessee is to commercially exploit the property and the business of the assessee is to let out the properties, the income has to be treated as business income of the assessee.…

Microsoft India (R&D) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-16(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2014-15 and 2015-16 is partly allowed

ITA 8229/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, Advocate; & MsFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal [CIT] – DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C

…he aforementioned question of law, observed as under: “17.1 The basic test for determining whether a lease for the letting of a building together with fixtures etc is a composite one was laid down by the Supreme Court in Sultan Bros. (P) Limited v. CIT (1964) 51 ITR 353. In the above decision, the Supreme Court was dealing with Section 12 (3) and (4) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 which correspondence Section 56 of the Act. There the Assessee had constructed a building for the purpose of running a hotel and for certain ancillary purposes. With this objective, the Assessee equipped with the building, furniture…

Microsoft India (R&D) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the grounds restored to the file of the Tribunal by the Hon'ble High Court are decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue

ITA 1479/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jun 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh[Assessment Year: 2011-12] & [Assessment Year: 2012-13]

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surendar Pal, CIT-DR
Section 254

…as explained that it is a case of renting of the premises with a host of facilities by way of infrastructure/amenities and maintenance. 14. Strong reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sultan Brothers Pvt Ltd vs CIT 51 ITR 353. It was brought to the notice of the Assessing Officer that relying on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court [supra], the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Garg Dyeing & Processing Industries in ITA No. 319 of 2012 has held that where the rent is received towards the composite let out i.e. letting out of building, furniture,…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Hyderabad vs. Cache Properties Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 65/HYD/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jun 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 24

…orary period, it was the intention of the assessee to enjoy the rental income from the letting out the property and hence it was to be treated as income from house property. v) The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sultan Brothers (P) Ltd., reported in [1964] 51 ITR 353 (SC) has held that where property has :- 9 -: ITA Nos. 64 & 65/Hyd/2020 M/s Cache Properties Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. been let out fully equipped and furnished for running a hotel, it could not be said that letting of building amounts to doing business and rental income could not be assessed as business income u/s 10 of 1922 Act. 7.4 By applying the rati…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Hyderabad vs. Cache Properties Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 64/HYD/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jun 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 24

…orary period, it was the intention of the assessee to enjoy the rental income from the letting out the property and hence it was to be treated as income from house property. v) The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sultan Brothers (P) Ltd., reported in [1964] 51 ITR 353 (SC) has held that where property has :- 9 -: ITA Nos. 64 & 65/Hyd/2020 M/s Cache Properties Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. been let out fully equipped and furnished for running a hotel, it could not be said that letting of building amounts to doing business and rental income could not be assessed as business income u/s 10 of 1922 Act. 7.4 By applying the rati…

Garikapati Raghuram, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, International Taxation, Hyderabad

Appeal is dismissed and additional ground No

ITA 915/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Apr 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey, DR
Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…lude all items noted in Annexure I appearing elsewhere in the order, within the ambit of the word 'plant'. It is not possible to give such a wide construction as suggested by the learned counsel for the assessee. In the case of Sultan Brothers Pvt.Ltd. v. CIT 51 ITR 353 (SC) what was let out to the tenant was a building fitted up with the furniture and fixtures, for being run as a hotel. Therefore, the Supreme Court held that since the building was let along with the furniture and fixtures, the provisions of sec.56(2) (iii) would be applicable and the income from building should be assessed under the head 'other…

Synchem Chemicals (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 10(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2753/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2021AY 2010-11
Section 10Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 45

…f its contentions:- a) Decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CEPT vs Shri Lakshmi Silk Mills Ltd reported in 20 ITR 451 (SC) M/s. Lupin Investments Pvt. Ltd b) Decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sultan Bros (P) Ltd vs CIT reported in 51 ITR 353 (SC) c) Decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs New India Industries reported in 201 ITR 208 (Guj) d) Decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of New Savan Sugar & Gur Refinery Co. Ltd vs CIT reported in 74 ITR 7 (SC) 6.4. We find that the ld CITA rightly observed that the assessee had leased the factory premises along w…

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 127/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Apr 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Shailesh Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Kannan Narayanan, JCIT-DR
Section 144Section 22Section 24Section 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:- 5 ITA No.1325/Bang/2017 & Ors. M/s.Vectra Advanced Engineering Pvt.Ltd. . “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…

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1328/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Apr 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Shailesh Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Kannan Narayanan, JCIT-DR
Section 144Section 22Section 24Section 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:- 5 ITA No.1325/Bang/2017 & Ors. M/s.Vectra Advanced Engineering Pvt.Ltd. . “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…

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1327/BANG/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Apr 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Shailesh Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Kannan Narayanan, JCIT-DR
Section 144Section 22Section 24Section 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:- 5 ITA No.1325/Bang/2017 & Ors. M/s.Vectra Advanced Engineering Pvt.Ltd. . “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…

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1326/BANG/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Apr 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Shailesh Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Kannan Narayanan, JCIT-DR
Section 144Section 22Section 24Section 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:- 5 ITA No.1325/Bang/2017 & Ors. M/s.Vectra Advanced Engineering Pvt.Ltd. . “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…

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1325/BANG/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Apr 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Shailesh Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Kannan Narayanan, JCIT-DR
Section 144Section 22Section 24Section 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:- 5 ITA No.1325/Bang/2017 & Ors. M/s.Vectra Advanced Engineering Pvt.Ltd. . “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…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Kenmore Vikas India (P) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2673/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleasstt. Year 2012-13

For Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 14Section 24

…lection of rents or development of markets, property there on, the income there from was assessable as income from house property. The cases of East India Housing (supra), Chugandas &Co. (55 ITR 17), SG Mercantile Corporation (83 ITR 700) and Sultan Brothers (51 ITR 353) decided by the Hon'ble SC are to this effect. On this issue, a wealth of subsequent decisions by Apex Court are available on the issue as to the fundamental concept that the objective of letting out the property and/or the temporary or permanent letting out & property would not make any difference. Different decisions have been rendered in a some…