Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 277 (0.59 seconds)
Documents citing Chennai Properties And Investment Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 4 March, 1998

Acit, Cc- 6(2),, Chennai vs S.N. Damani Infra Pvt. Ltd.,, Chennai on 30 November, 2021

No: 3324/Chny/2019 Supreme Court in the case of Chennai Properties & Investment Ltd vs CIT, (supra) and the latest decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Raj Dadarkar and Associates vs ACIT, (supra). The AO without appreciating facts has wrongly concluded that income derived from letting out of properties is assessable under the head 'income from business or profession' as against income declared under the head 'income from house properties'. The CIT(A) after considering relevant facts has rightly directed the AO to assess income derived from letting out of properties under the head income from house property. Hence, we are inclined to uphold findings of the Ld. CIT(A) and dismiss appeal filed by the Revenue.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai Cites 12 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Dcit Cen Cir 1(2), Mumbai vs Hiranandnani Palace Gardens P.Ltd, ... on 3 October, 2019

5. We have considered rival contentions and perused the record. The issue under consideration has been restored by the CIT(A) to the file of AO to compute the annual value. Recently the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. Vs. CIT, reported in (2015) 42 SCD 651, vide judgment dated 9-4-2015 has held that where assessee company engaged in the activity of letting out properties and the rental income received was shown as business income, the action of AO treating the rental income as income from house property in place of income from business shown by the assessee was held to be not justified. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that since the assessee company's main object, is to acquire and held properties and to let out these properties, the income : 25 : ITA Nos. 4392, 4393 & 4394/Mum/2016 earned by letting out these properties is main objective of the company, therefore, rent received from the letting out of the properties is assessable as income from business. On the very same analogy in the instant case, assessee is engaged in business of construction and development, which is main object of the assessee company. The three flats which could not be sold at the end of the year was shown as stock-in-trade. Estimating rental income by the AO for these three flats as income from house property was not justified insofar as these flats were neither given on rent nor the assessee has intention to earn rent by letting out the flats. The flats not sold was its stock-in-trade and income arising on its sale is liable to be taxed as business income. Accordingly, we do not find any justification in the order of AO for estimating rental income from these vacant flats u/s.23 which is assessee's stock in trade as at the end of the year. Accordingly, the AO is directed to delete the addition made by estimating letting value of the flats u/s.23 of the I.T.Act."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Roxy Theatres P.Ltd, Mumbai vs Ito 5(3)(1), Mumbai on 3 April, 2019

In the circumstances, following the decision of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for the earlier assessment years, we restore this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer to examine the issue afresh denovo, keeping in view the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd., v. CIT (supra) and Rayala Corporation Pvt. Ltd., v. ACIT [386 ITR 500] and thus, we restore this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer accordingly and needless to say that the Assessing Officer shall provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ito 12(1)(3), Mumbai vs Balwas Realty And Infrastructure ... on 3 October, 2018

given its two industrial buildings Indiplex-I and Indiplex-II on lease and had received licence feel of Rs. - 25,82,016/and service charges of . Rs. 21,24,776/- which were shown as business income. During the curse of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer had made additions by treating the business income declared by the assessee to be in the nature of income from house property. The counsel of the assessee has vehemently opposed the additions made the Assessing Officer and submitted that these be deleted. It is noted that assessee company is in the business of building and leasing premises of special nature as per the requirements of the clients. The Company has installed special equipment and premises is designed to suit clients needs. It is not simply letting out a structure to earn rental income out of it. It is noted that on similar facts Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chennai Properties ITA No.261/Mum/2016 4 and Investments Ltd. vs CIT [2015] 56 Taxmann.com 456 (SC) has held that where in terms of memorandum of association, main object of the assessee company was to acquire properties and earn income by letting the same, said income was to be brought to tax as business income and not as income from house property. It is noted that facts of the present case are identical to the facts of the case of Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd. as discussed and the ratio as laid out by the Apex Court is applicable on the facts of the case: Respectfully following the judgment of the Apex ' Court in the case of Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd. and on the facts of the case it is held that the income earned by the appellant company during the year was in the nature of business income and not in the nature of income from House Property as taken by the Learned Assessing Officer. The additions made by the Assessing Officer in this regard cannot be sustained in appeal and are directed to be deleted. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal of the appellant are allowed." 4. We find from the above facts and circumstances of the case that the CIT (A) has rightly allowed the claim of the assessee that of the leave and license charges and service charges as income from business and we uphold the same. This issue of Revenue's appeal is dismissed."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dcit, Cir-10(1), Kolkata, Kolkata vs M/S Maa Amba Towers Ltd., Kolkata on 12 October, 2018

In view of the aforesaid findings in the facts and circumstances of the case and respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chennai Properties supra, we hold that the ld CITA had rightly directed the ld AO to treat the warehouse rentals as income from business and consequentially allow the expenditure claimed in the return as business expenditure. Accordingly, the Ground No.1 raised by the revenue is dismissed."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 30 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Ferani Hotels P.Ltd, Mumbai vs Acit Cen Cir 4(1), Mumbai on 21 December, 2018

"5. We have considered rival contentions and perused the record. The issue under consideration has been restored by the CIT(A) to the file of AO to compute the annual value. Recently the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. Vs. CIT, reported in (2015) 42 SCD 651, vide judgment dated 9-4-2015 has held that where assessee company engaged in the activity of letting out properties and the rental income received was shown as business income, the action of AO treating the rental income as income from house property in place of income from business shown by the assessee was held to be not 11 ITA. No.6332/M/2016 A.Y.2012-13 justified. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that since the assessee company's main object, is to acquire and held properties and to let out these properties, the income earned by letting out these properties is main objective of the company, therefore, rent received from the letting out of the properties is assessable as income from business. On the very same analogy in the instant case, assessee is engaged in business of construction and development, which is main object of the assessee company. The three flats which could not be sold at the end of the year was shown as stock-in-trade. Estimating rental income by the AO for these three flats as income from house property was not justified insofar as these flats were neither given on rent nor the assessee has intention to earn rent by letting out the flats. The flats not sold was its stock-in- trade and income arising on its sale is liable to be taxed as business income. Accordingly, we do not find any justification in the order of AO for estimating rental income from these vacant flats u/s.23 which is assessee's stock in trade as at the end of the year. Accordingly, the AO is directed to delete the addition made by estimating letting value of the flats u/s.23 of the I.T.Act."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 23 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Acit (Osd) Corporate Circle 4(2), ... vs Kka Buildtech Private Limited, Chennai on 8 October, 2021

18. We, therefore respectfully following the above judicial precedence and also by considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the income earned by the assessee by constructing the shopping mall and letting out the same by providing various facilities are amounting to business activity of the assessee and the income earned out of such an activity has to be treated as a business income. Further, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. v. CIT (supra), squarely applies to the facts of this case and the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly followed the same. Hence, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). Thus, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next