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

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1389/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2016AY 2006-07

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…

M/S. D.B.S. Financial Services P. Ltd vs. The ACIT Cir 3(1)

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2144/MUM/2004[1993-1994]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2016AY 1993-1994

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ashwani Tanejaआयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No.2269/Mum/2004 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 1993-94 आयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No.3543/Mum/2004 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 1997-98 आयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No.3544/Mum/2004 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 1998-99 आयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No.4675/Mum/2004 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 1999-2000 आयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No.314/Mum/2008 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05 बनाम/ The Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Dbs Financial Services Income Tax, Range 3(1), Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Raheja Chambers, 2Nd Floor, Mumbai-400 020 213, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 आयकर अपील सं /I.Ta Nos.2144 To 2146 & 3541/Mum/2004 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years:1993-94 To 1995-96&1997-98 बनाम/ M/S. Dbs Financial The Dy. Commissioner Of Services Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Range 3(1), Vs. Raheja Chambers, 2Nd Aayakar Bhavan, Floor, Mumbai-400 020 213, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacd 0540P (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Department By: Shri Niraj Sheth

For Appellant: Shri Ashish HeliwalFor Respondent: Shri Niraj Sheth

…es, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the decision relied on by the Ld. Counsel. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case relying on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sultan Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT (51 ITR 353) and CIT Vs Shambu Investments Pvt. Ltd., (263 ITR 143) held that the income earned by the assessee from letting out of property should be treated under the head “Income from House property. However, in the recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chennai Properties (supra), it was held that when the main object of the assessee…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Ajay Kaila, New Delhi

In the result, the Cross Objection of the assessee is also

ITA 245/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Am & Ms Suchitra Kamble, Jm Assessment Year : 2010-11 Acit, Vs. Ajay Kalia, Circle-32(1), 128/B/1, Village Kilokari, New Delhi. Near Ashram, New Delhi. Pan: Aacpk5645F Co No.254/Del/2014 (Ita No.245/Del/2014) Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Anantha Raman, CA

Section 253(4)Section 268A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : A : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, AM & MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM Assessment Year : 2010-11 ACIT, Vs. Ajay Kalia, Circle-32(1), 128/B/1, Village Kilokari, New Delhi. Near Ashram, New Delhi. PAN: AACPK5645F CO No.254/Del/2014 (ITA No.245/Del/2014) Assessment Year : 2010-11 Ajay Kalia, Vs. ACIT, 128/B/1, Village Kilokari, Circle-32(1), Near Ashram, New Delhi New Delhi. PAN: AACPK5645F Assessee By : Shri Suresh Anantha Raman, CA Deptt. By : Shri K.K. Jaiswal, DR Date of Hearing : 06.01.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 07.01.2016 CO No.253/Del/2014 ORDER PER R.S. SY…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Jay Metal Industries Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed

ITA 4836/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

For Appellant: Shri Atiq Ahmad, Sr. DRFor Respondent: S/Shri Salil Kapoor, Sanat Kapoor, Advocates

Section 24Section 56(2)(iii)

…the CIT(A) is correct and justified and appeal of the revenue being devoid of merits may be dismissed. Ld. Counsel of the assessee has placed reliance on the ratio of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sultan Brothers (P) Ltd. vs CIT (1964) 51 ITR 353 (SC). 6. Ld. DR also placed a rejoinder to the above submissions of the assessee and submitted that where letting of building and fixtures, fittings, air- conditioning plant, furniture and generator set etc. were inseparable part of the rented premises, then the rental income is composite rent which should be assessed as income from other sourc…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Satbir Singh, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4594/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri O.P.Kantacit, Satbir Singh, Circle-33(1), 4/73, Wea Krishna Vs. New Delhi Market, Karolbagh, New Delhi Pan:Aogps9991A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Sujit Kumar, Sr. Dr, Respondent By : Sh. Y.P. Rawala, Ca

For Appellant: Sh. Sujit Kumar, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Y.P. Rawala, CA

Section 143(3)Section 38Section 56(2)Section 57

…el in earlier years, which was let out and therefore rental income from hotel building was liable for assessment under the head ‘income from other sources’ in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sultan Brother Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1964) 51 ITR 353 (SC). Whereas, the assessee contended before the ld. Assessing Officer that primary purpose of letting out the hotel building was to earn income from the property and therefore in view of the later judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sambhu Investment Pvt. Ltd Vs. CIT, 263 ITR 143, the income was to be assessed under the head ‘Inc…

Garg Dyeing & Processing Industries vs. Asstt Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/319/2012HC Delhi22 Nov 2012

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…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S. Ansal Housing Finance and Leasing Co. Ltd

The Appeals are disposed of in the above terms without any order on costs

ITA-18/1999HC Delhi31 Oct 2012

…er enjoyed- or put back 2012:DHC:6622-DB ITA 18/99, 56,57,105, 107,109,114,177/01, 88/02 111, 321,498/03,227,336,529,690/04,212/05 Page 8 into the business to acquire more properties for further profitable exploitation.” 7. In Sultan's case [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, sepa…

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi IV vs. D.S.Promoters & Developers P. Ltd

The Appeal is dismissed but with no orders as to costs

ITA/654/2008HC Delhi01 May 2009

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAMAJIT SEN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

Section 22Section 260ASection 28

…ot supported by the evidence, was perverse or patently unreasonable”. 5. The leading case pertaining to the head under which “income from property” is to be assessed to Income Tax is Sultan Brothers Private Ltd. –vs- CIT, Bombay City II, [1964] 51 ITR 353. The Assessee had constructed a building which it had fitted with fixtures and furnishings and had let it out on lease fully equipped and furnished for the purposes of running a hotel at a monthly rent of Rupees 5,950/- and monthly hire of Rupees 5,000/-. Their Lordships noted that the object of the Assessee was to acquire land ITA No.654/…