Section 2(13) of the Income Tax Act

The decision most relied on for Section 2(13) is Shambhu Investment (P) Ltd. v. CIT (263 ITR 143), cited in 181 of the 92 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 2(13)

Shambhu Investment (P) Ltd. v. CIT
263 ITR 143 · 2003 · Supreme Court
181
citing judgments

Income derived from letting out property along with incidental use of furniture, fixtures, and common facilities is assessable as 'income from house property' and not 'business income' when the prime object is merely to let out and not to exploit the property as a business asset.

Sultan Bros. (P) Ltd. v. CIT
51 ITR 353 · 1964 · Supreme Court
148
citing judgments

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.

S.G. Mercantile Corporation P. Ltd. v. CIT, Calcutta
83 ITR 700 · 1972 · Supreme Court
126
citing judgments

Income from sources not falling under any other head of income under Section 14 of the Income Tax Act is taxed under the residuary head 'income from other sources'. If income cannot be taxed under Section 45 (capital gains), it cannot be taxed at all.

Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-2 v. Caraf Builders & Constructions (P.) Ltd.
112 Taxmann.com 322 · 2019 · Supreme Court
71
citing judgments

Disallowance under Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 cannot exceed the actual amount of exempt income earned by the assessee during the relevant previous year. This principle applies to assessment years prior to the amendment by Finance Bill 2022.

Universal Plast Ltd. v. CIT
237 ITR 454 · 1999 · Supreme Court
69
citing judgments

Income received by an assessee from leasing or letting out assets, whether categorized as lease amount, rent, or license fee, is a mixed question of law and fact to determine if it falls under 'Profits and gains of business or profession'. No precise test exists, and the determination must consider the perspective of a businessman, the specific facts, and the true interpretation of the letting agreement.

Narain Swadeshi Weaving Mills v. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax
26 ITR 765 · 1954 · Supreme Court
64
citing judgments

The definition of 'business' is of wide import, encompassing any trade, commerce, manufacture, or adventure in the nature of trade. Even a single and isolated transaction can constitute an 'adventure in the nature of trade' if it bears the clear indicia of trade, and no fixed formula can be evolved to determine the character of such isolated transactions.

Mazagaon Dock Ltd. v. CIT & Excess Profits Tax
34 ITR 368 · 1958 · Supreme Court
57
citing judgments

Investments made by a holding company in its subsidiary can be considered a business activity, allowing related business expenditures to be deducted and not disallowed.

CIT v. Motilal Hirabhai Spg. And Wvg. Co. Ltd.
113 ITR 173 · 1978 · High Court
49
citing judgments

The determination of whether share transactions constitute a business activity or an investment depends on the facts of the case. Factors like volume, frequency, and regularity indicate business activity, irrespective of how such transactions are presented in accounts.

CIT v. Upasana
225 ITR 845 · 1997 · High Court
41
citing judgments

Expenditure incurred by a holding company for making investments in a subsidiary can be treated as business expenditure and is not disallowable, as such investment activity can itself constitute a business.

CIT v. V A Trivedi
172 ITR 95 · 1988 · High Court
37
citing judgments

The character of a transaction as an adventure in the nature of trade, or not, depends on the totality of circumstances, and no single test is sufficient. Specifically, for land, the court will consider its use for agricultural purposes prior to transfer and the intended future use by the purchaser.

Judgments on Section 2(13)

Vidyasagar M.P Sah, Mumbai vs. DCIT 23(3), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 527/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 527/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Vidyasagar M. P. Sah Dy. Cit-23(3), बनाम/ 22-A, Bandstand Society, Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, 197-C, Kane Road, Bandra (W), Mumbai Vs. Mumbai-400 050 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aafps 5412 H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ajay R. Singh ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Aarjoo Garodia सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 04.12.2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 04.12.2017 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-34, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 12.01.2016 & Pertains To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2012-13. The Grounds Of Appeal Read As Under: 1. Short Term Capital Gain Of Rs.3,51,66,426/- Treated As Business Income 1. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Treating The Short Term Capital Gain Of Rs.3,51,66,426/- As 'Business Income1 Without Appreciating The Crucial Facts That The Assessee Is A Professional / Consultant For Exploration & Drilling Activities For Oil Wells / Rigs Etc. Which Is The Principal Source Of Income Since 32 Years, Wherein He Has To Devote Maximum Time & The Activity Has Been Accepted By The Department In All The Prior Years As Well As In The Relevant

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. SinghFor Respondent: Ms. Aarjoo Garodia