Which cases are most cited on Section 56(2)(iii)?

CIT v. Shambhu Investment Pvt. Ltd. (249 ITR 47) — 57 citing judgments; Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai and Another (7 SCC 421) — 26 citing judgments; M/s. Radhasoami Satsang, Saomi Bagh, Agra v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1 SCC 659) — 23 citing judgments; CIT v. Goel Builders (331 ITR 344) — 12 citing judgments; Sri Hanuman Sugar & Industries Ltd. v. CIT (266 ITR 106) — 11 citing judgments.

How many judgments are there on Section 56(2)(iii)?

BharatTax indexes 32 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that turn on Section 56(2)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Section 56(2)(iii) of the Income Tax Act

Q: What is the leading case on Section 56(2)(iii) of the Income Tax Act?

CIT v. Shambhu Investment Pvt. Ltd. (249 ITR 47) is the decision most relied on for Section 56(2)(iii), cited in 57 judgments. Income from letting out immovable property, even with ancillary services, is taxable as 'Income from House Property' if the dominant intention is to exploit the property itself, not to run a complex business providing integrated services. The classification depends on the assessee's primary object in exploiting the property.

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.92

Section 56(2)(iii) falls under section 56 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which corresponds to section 92 (Income from other sources) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 92 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

The decision most relied on for Section 56(2)(iii) is CIT v. Shambhu Investment Pvt. Ltd. (249 ITR 47), cited in 57 of the 32 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 56(2)(iii)

CIT v. Shambhu Investment Pvt. Ltd.

249 ITR 47 · 2001 · High Court

citing judgments

Income from letting out immovable property, even with ancillary services, is taxable as 'Income from House Property' if the dominant intention is to exploit the property itself, not to run a complex business providing integrated services. The classification depends on the assessee's primary object in exploiting the property.

Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai and Another

7 SCC 421 · 2017 · Reported

citing judgments

The decision in Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. [2017] 7 SCC 421 is referred to in the context of the rule of consistency, particularly concerning the application of provisions related to income calculation and disallowances.

M/s. Radhasoami Satsang, Saomi Bagh, Agra v. Commissioner of Income Tax

1 SCC 659 · 1992 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

The consistent treatment of a matter across different assessment years should not be changed without new facts justifying the change.

CIT v. Goel Builders

331 ITR 344 · 2011 · High Court

citing judgments

The principle of consistency in tax matters should be followed, meaning the revenue should not take a contrary view if there is no material change in circumstances justifying it.

Sri Hanuman Sugar & Industries Ltd. v. CIT

266 ITR 106 · 2004 · High Court

citing judgments

An assessee's intention regarding a temporary vs. final parting with a factory is a factual determination. This determination is not subject to res judicata, allowing authorities to reach different conclusions in subsequent years based on new evidence.

Jay Metal Industries (P) Ltd. v. CIT

396 ITR 194 · 2017 · High Court

citing judgments

ENN ZEN Enterprises (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT: 45 ITRT) 382 (Chandigarh ITAT)

119 TTJ 421 · ITAT

citing judgments

Judgments on Section 56(2)(iii)

Striton Properties Private Limited (Erstwhile Mars Hotels and Resorts Private Limited), Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 10(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3945/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant S. Pathak, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. A/R

Section 32

Striton Properties Private Limited (Erstwhile Mars Hotel and Resorts Private Limited), Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 10(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3944/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant S. Pathak, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. A/R

Section 32

Indo Allied Protein Foods Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 6(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 663/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "C" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri M.S. ShethFor Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 23Section 234ASection 234BSection 24Section 56(2)(iii)

Aurelia Housing Co-Operative Society Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-49(4), Kolkata.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1138/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 1138/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Aurelia Housing Co-Perative Income Tax Officer, Ward-49(4), Society Ltd. Vs Kolkata Premises No.-30 2222, Plot No. Cd-19 Action Area-I Major Arterial Road New Town Kolkata - 700156 [Pan : Aaaba0803F] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Prabhas Roy, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 22/08/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. On The Previous Occasion When The Case Was Fixed For Hearing On 07/02/2024 & 23/01/2024, The Assessee Sought Adjournment. Today, There Is No Appearance. We, Therefore, Decide To Adjudicate The Appeal On The Basis Of Available Record & Hearing The Ld. D/R. 3. The Sole Issue Involved In The Instant Appeal Is The Disallowance Of Depreciation Claimed Of Rs. 33,69,260/-. Facts In Brief Are That The 2

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Prabhas Roy, JCIT, Sr. D/R

Section 143(2)Section 2Section 250Section 36Section 57

DCIT, Central Circle-4, New Delhi vs. Hyderabad Distilleries & Wineries Pvt.Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 50/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year: 2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(iii)

Natwar Lal Sharda, Jaipur vs. PCIT-2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 164/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Prathviraj Meena (CIT) a

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271ASection 57Section 69

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

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

Addl CIT RG 10(2), Mumbai vs. Geometric Softwar Solutions Co. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, ground no

ITA 6219/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm M/S Geometric Software The Acit Solutions Company Ltd. Ward 10(2), [ Now Merged With Hcl Room No.432, 4Th Floor, Technologies Limited ] Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, 806, Sidharth, 96 Nehru Mumbai-400 020 Place, New Delhi 19 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aabcg 0066 A Co No. 157/Mum/2011 (Arising In Ita No.6219/Mum/2010 For A.Y. 2005–06) M/S Geometric Software Solutions Company Ltd. The Acit (Now Gemetric Ltd.) [ Now Ward 10(2), Room No.432, 4Th Floor, Merged With Hcl Vs. Technologies Limited] Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400 020 806, Sidharth, 96 Nehru Place, New Delhi 19 (Respondent) (Cross Objector) Assessee By : Shri Porus F. Kaka & Shri Manish Kanth, Ars‟ Revenue By : Shri Sumit Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.07.2022

For Appellant: Shri Porus F. Kaka &For Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar, DR

Section 10ASection 14A

Geometric Software Solutins Co. Ltd ( Now Gemetric Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 10(2), Mumbai

In the result, ground no

ITA 5975/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2022AY 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Porus F. Kaka &For Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar, DR

Section 10ASection 14A

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)