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

Select Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the assessment year

ITA 3751/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. S. Rana, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 22Section 24

…on'ble Apex Court, after analyzing various provisions contained in sections 22 to 27 and also various I.T.A. No.3751, 3775&3752/D/2013 & ,5401,5402&5241/D/2014 19 judgments of its own Court including that of Sultan Bros. (P.) Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in [1964] 51 ITR 353 (SC) and the judgment in the case of Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd. Vs. CIT (supra) and Rayala Corporation (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT, held that the income earned by the assessee is to be treated as income from house property. The relevant finding and observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court are as under:- “14. There may be instances where a partic…

Golden Soya Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD No, 2(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 574/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) I.T.A. No. 574/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year 2011-12) I.T.A. No. 573/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year 2010-11) I.T.A. No. 572/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year 2009-10) I.T.A. No. 571/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year 2008-09)

Section 57

…s obligation of every citizen to pay the taxes honestly without resorting to subterfuges. d) Further reliance is placed on the following judicial decisions in this regard. 1. CIT V/s Universal Plats reported at 237 ITR 454 (SC) 2. Sultan Bros P Ltd. v/s CIT 51 ITR 353 (SC) 3. Narain Swadeshi Weaving Mills v/s CEPT 5. Further, the assessee had claimed various administrative expenses, being the expenses incurred at the plant and at the head office. The AO determined the expenses, which are related to the lease rental income and allowed the same. The AO also allowed depreciation claim. He accordingly 5 Golden So…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Shriram Chits

Appeal is allowed

RP/42/2017HC Karnataka16 Jun 2017

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

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…

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

…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 Court relied on the Karanpura Development Co. Ltd. v. CIT, (1962) 44 ITR 362 and the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of East India Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd. v. CI…

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

…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 Court relied on the Karanpura Development Co. Ltd. v. CIT, (1962) 44 ITR 362 and the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of East India Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd. v. CI…

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

…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 Court relied on the Karanpura Development Co. Ltd. v. CIT, (1962) 44 ITR 362 and the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of East India Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd. v. CI…

Shri M M Creations, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

ITA 5641/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini & Smt. Beena A. Pillai & M. M. Creations Acit T-481A, Baljeet Nagar Circle-24(1), Behind Patel Nagar Police Station New Delhi Vs. New Delhi. Pan : Aaefm9802A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. R. S. SinghviFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 24Section 56Section 56(2)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. SAINI , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA A. PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER & M. M. Creations ACIT T-481A, Baljeet Nagar Circle-24(1), Behind Patel Nagar Police Station New Delhi Vs. New Delhi. PAN : AAEFM9802A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. R. S. Singhvi Sh. Satyajeet Goyal, CAs. Respondent by : Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 25.04.2017 Date of pronouncement : 05.05.2017 O R D E R PER BENCH : 1. The present appeals have been filed by assessee against order dated 29.06.2012 and 26.12.2012 passed by Ld. CIT(A…

Sea Scan Marine Services P. Ltd, Goa vs. DCIT CC-9, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 7086/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Sea Scan Marine Services Dcit Cc-9, Pvt. Ltd., Fire Services Old Cgo Building, Compound, St. Inez Panaji, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Goa-403001 Pan: Aadcs4236J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Amar Gahlot (AR)For Respondent: Shri Akhilendra Jadav (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 24Section 253Section 254(1)

…g decisions: 1. United Commercial Bank Ltd. Vs. CIT [1975] 32 ITR 688 (SC). 2. East India Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd. [1961] 42 ITR 49 (SC). 3. Karanpura Development Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT [1962] 44 ITR 362(SC). 4. Sultan Brothers (P) Ltd. Vs CIT [1964] 51 ITR 353 (SC). 5. Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. vs. CIT [2015] 373 ITR 673. 6. Abdul Qayume Vs. CIT [1990] 50 Taxman 171 (All). 7. Profile Consultancy Services (P) Ltd. Vs CIT [2016] 161 296 (Mumbai-Trib.). 4. On the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue supported the order of authorities below and argued that the assessee consistently was showing “Bu…

DCIT 1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Fgp Ltd, Mumbai

In the results, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3474/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax Fgp Ltd, 1(1)(1), Commercial Union, फनधभ/ Room No.579, 9, Wallace Street, Aayakar Bhavan, Fort, Vs. M K Road, Mumbai-400001 Mumbai-400020 स्थधमी रेखध सं./ Pan : Aaacf1671M (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीरधथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Ms.Anupama Singla प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri Ashwin Kashinath

For Appellant: Ms.Anupama SinglaFor Respondent: Shri Ashwin Kashinath
Section 27

…parable with equipments and facilities the income has to be assessed as income from other sources under section 56(2)(iii) if the same is not found assessable as income from business in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sultan Brothers (51 ITR 353). The issue is therefore whether the income has to be assessed as business income or income from other sources. 2.2.7 On careful consideration of the various aspects of the matter as well as the various judgments placed on record we are of the view that rental income on the facts of the case has to be assessed as business income. It is not a case…

City Centre Mall Nashik P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 6(2) (Now Asst CIT 6(2)), Mumbai

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

ITA 1783/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

Section 14ASection 43B

…the city of Madras (now Chennai) and to let out properties. The Hon’ble Supreme court, after considering the decisions rendered by it in the case of East India Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd Vs. CIT (42 ITR 49); Sultan Brothers (P) Ltd Vs. CIT (1964)(51 ITR 353) and Karanpura Development Co Ltd (44 ITR 362) held that the rental income derived by the assessee is to be assessed as its business income. The Hon’ble Apex Court took note of the fact that the main object of the assessee was to acquire and hold the properties known as “Chennai House” and “Firhavin Estate” and to let those properties as well as t…

ITO Ward-41(1), Kolkata vs. Sri Shyamal Banerjee, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1580/KOL/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Sept 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 154Section 251

…d ward, furniture and fixtures and other services. All these facts unmistakeably show the intention of the assessee that he was making use of the property for business or commercial purpose. It is worth to note that in Sultan Bros. Pvt. Ltd. –vs. – CIT (1964) 51 ITR 353 at page no. 354, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that whether a particular letting is business has to be decided in the circumstances of each case, and each case has to be looked at from a businessmen’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. 14. Further, in the gr…

Sharan Hospitality P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 9(3), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 6717/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6717/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Sharan Hospitality Private Limited Dy. Cit – Circle 9(3) बनाम/ Ground Floor, Gys Infinity, Mumbai Paranjape ‘B’, Scheme, Subhas Road, Vs. Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-57 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aagcs 8608 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. Priyanka Jain ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K. Mahondas सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 26.5.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 12.9.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 18.9.2012, Dismissing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting Its Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2009- 10 Vide Order Dated 22.12.2011. 2. The Only Issue Arising In This Appeal Is The Correct Amount At Which The Annual Value In Respect Of The Assessee’S Swami Vivekanand (S.V.) Road, Mumbai Property

For Appellant: Ms. Priyanka JainFor Respondent: Shri K. Mahondas
Section 143(3)Section 22Section 23

…AV, irrespective of whether the property is actually let or not, is thus to be subject to tax, unless covered under section 23(1)(b), as again reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court per its Constitution Bench decision in Sultan Brothers (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1964] 51 ITR 353 (SC). In Liquidator of Mahamudabad Properties (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1980] 124 ITR 31 (SC), the Hon’ble Apex Court held that even where the property was found to be in a state of utter disrepair, it yet would have some annual value, rejecting the Revenue’s stand that being not in an inhabitable state, it did not admit of letting and, thus, carried no A…

Ashapura Developers, Mumbai vs. JCIT -Range 25(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby Allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7119/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7119/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S. Ashapura Developers Jt. Commissioner Of Income बनाम/ 101B, Hallmark Business Tax Range 25(1) Vs. Plaza, Opp. Gurunanak 1St Floor, Hospital, Sant Gyaneshwar Pratyakskar Bhavan, Marg, Bandra (East), Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400051 Mumbai - 400051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aanfa1971F

For Appellant: Shri Vijay C. KothariFor Respondent: Shri B.D.Naik
Section 14Section 143(1)Section 22Section 23

…le of Law. i. Azimganj Estate Pvt. Ltd. V/s. CIT [ITA No.242 of 2003 (KOL)] ii Roma Builders [ITA No.4118/Mum/2008 Dt.09.03.2011, 60 DTR (Mum) TRI 231] iii East India Housing & Land Development Trust Ltd. [42 ITR 49 (SC)] iv Sultan Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs/ CIT [51 ITR 353 (SC)] v O. RM. SP. SV. Firm V/s. CIT [39 ITR 327 (MAD)] vi Salisbury House Estates Ltd. V/s. FRY [AC 432 (HL)] vii Atma Ram Properties (P)Ltd. V/s. Dy.cIT [85 ITD 86 (DEL)] 3. However, the assessee has take the number of grounds in his appeal but the sole ground which is in dispute is that the rental income received by the assessee is liable to b…

M/S. Subex Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1430/BANG/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Aug 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Chythanya K.K., AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. G. Manoj Kumar, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 10ASection 10B

…pro Ltd. v. CIT, [2015] 62 taxmann.com 26 (Karnataka) (iii) Galatea Ltd. v. DCIT (IT), [2016] 67 taxmann.com 190 (Mumbai-Trib.) (iv) Tata Elxsi Ltd. v, ACIT, ITA No.398, 1074 & 1410/Bang/2012, order dated 20.03.2015. (v) Sultan Brothers (P) Ltd. v. CIT (1964) 51 ITR 353 (SC) (vi) Goodricke Group Ltd. v. CIT, 2011-TIOL-262-HC-KOL-IT (vii) CIT v. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd. [2010] 194 Taxman 192 (Bom) 4. The ld. DR, besides placing reliance upon the order of the AO and the CIT(Appeals), has contended that the assessee does not manufacture Page 5 of 18 or produce hardware and the meaning of software cannot be str…

Ravindra Sunku, Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 65/BANG/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri K.Y. Ningoji Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Renuka Devi,JCIT (D.R)
Section 234BSection 45Section 57

…by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Shambu Investments Ltd. (supra) which has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme 10 IT(I.T)A Nos.65 & 66/Bang/2015 Court cited in 263 ITR 143. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sultan Brothers Vs. CIT 51 ITR 353 while dealing with an identical issue has observed that the income realized by the owners by way of rental income from a building whether commercial or residential house is assessable under the head ‘income from house property’. The only exceptions are cases where letting off the building is inseparable from letting of machinery, plant and furn…

ACIT Cir 12(3), Mumbai vs. Lake View Developers, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed

ITA 4495/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3409/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Lake View Developers Addl. Cit, Range 12(3), बनाम/ 514, Dalamal Towers, Mumbai 211 F.P.J. Marg, Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai-400 021 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafl 0589 R (Assessee) : (Revenue) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4495/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बनाम/ Addl. Cit, Range 12(3), Lake View Developers Mumbai Mumbai-400 021 Vs. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafl 0589 R (Revenue) (Assessee) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4496/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Addl. Cit, Range 12(3), Omega Associates, बनाम/ Mumbai 514, Dalamal Tower, 211-F.P.J. Marg, Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai-400 021 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafl 0589 R (Revenue) : (Assessee) : Shri Chetan Karia Revenue By Assessee By : Shri R. P. Rastogi सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 03.5.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 28.7.2016 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri R. P. Rastogi
Section 143(3)Section 22

…f income assessable under the said head of income, the same violates the well- settled law as explained by the Hon’ble Apex Court time and again, and toward which we may reproduce from its constitution bench decision in Sultan Brothers (P.) Ltd. vs.CIT [1964] 51 ITR 353 (SC): ‘The several heads of income mentioned in section 6 of the Income Tax Act, 1922, and dealt with separately in sections. 7 to 12 are mutually exclusive, each head being specific to cover the income 4 ITA Nos. 3409, 4495 &4496/Mum/2013 (A.Y. 2009-10) Lake View Developers & Omega Associates arising from a particular source, and it cannot be sa…

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi vs. M/S Ansal Housing & Construction

ITA/442/2003HC Delhi26 Jul 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 22

…Page 3 of 5 5. The "other judgments" referred to in the above decision were East India Housing & Land Development Trust v. CIT [1961] 42 ITR 49 SC and Sultan Bros. (P) Ltd. v. CIT [1964] 51 ITR 353 (SC). The alternative submission was that the flats owned by the Assessee could not be taxed on the basis of their annual letting value („ALV‟) notionally because the owner is an occupant and “such occupation is in the course of, and for the purpose of business, as a builder”. 6. In CIT v. Ansal Housing Finance & Leasing Co. Ltd. (supra)…

The Commissioner of Income Tax III vs. Sri Ravi Sanghi

ITTA/168/2010HC Telangana23 Jun 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Om Estate & Finance (P) Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 7(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2133/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble S/Shri Sanjay Garg, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1389 & 1390/Mum/2011 Om Estates & Finance Pvt बनाम/ Income Tax Officer, 7(1)(2), Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 764-E Umrigar Bldg, M K Road, Mumbai. Tilak Road, Parsi Colony, Dadar, Mumbai-400014 स्थायी ऱेखा सुं./ Pan : Aaaco1199H (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Devdatta MainkarFor Respondent: Dr.S Pandian
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 194Section 24

…of the contentions raised by the ld.AR, he placed reliance on the following decisions: i ) Mohiddin Hotels (P) Ltd. reported in 284 ITR 229 (Bom); ii) Plaza Hotels (P) Ltd-147 ITD 98 (Mum) iii) Gesco Corporation Ltd-31 SOT 132 (Mum) iv) Sultan Brothers P Ltd 51 ITR 353 (SC) 6. Per contra, the ld.DR vehemently opposed the argument of the ld. AR by relying on the orders of the authorities below. 7. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the material placed before us. We find that the assessee was owner of the hotel comprised in land admeasuring about 1012 sq. mtr bearing plot No.51 at Hil…

Om Estates & Finance P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 7(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1390/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble S/Shri Sanjay Garg, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1389 & 1390/Mum/2011 Om Estates & Finance Pvt बनाम/ Income Tax Officer, 7(1)(2), Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 764-E Umrigar Bldg, M K Road, Mumbai. Tilak Road, Parsi Colony, Dadar, Mumbai-400014 स्थायी ऱेखा सुं./ Pan : Aaaco1199H (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Devdatta MainkarFor Respondent: Dr.S Pandian
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 194Section 24

…of the contentions raised by the ld.AR, he placed reliance on the following decisions: i ) Mohiddin Hotels (P) Ltd. reported in 284 ITR 229 (Bom); ii) Plaza Hotels (P) Ltd-147 ITD 98 (Mum) iii) Gesco Corporation Ltd-31 SOT 132 (Mum) iv) Sultan Brothers P Ltd 51 ITR 353 (SC) 6. Per contra, the ld.DR vehemently opposed the argument of the ld. AR by relying on the orders of the authorities below. 7. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the material placed before us. We find that the assessee was owner of the hotel comprised in land admeasuring about 1012 sq. mtr bearing plot No.51 at Hil…