Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 39 (0.33 seconds)Commissioner Of Income-Tax Bombay vs Chugandas And Co., Bombay on 29 July, 1964
14. Adverting now to ground no.1 in the appeal of the Revenue
relating to an amount of Rs. 13,32,660/- assessed by the AO as
income under the head 'Business or Profession', the AO noticed
that the assessee reflected interest income of Rs.13,32,913/- under
the head "Income from other sources". The amount comprised
Rs.253/- on account of interest from SB Account, Rs.12,07,805/- on
account of interest on FDRs with the banks and Rs.1,24,855/- on
account of other interest. In response to the show cause notice, as
to why this amount be not assessed as income from business or
profession, the assessee vide letter dated 17-08-2007 replied that
earning of interest is not business of the assessee while the interest
paid on overdraft raised on assets was not at all linked up with the
securities from which interest was generated. Relying upon the
decision in the case of United Commercial Bank Ltd. vs. CIT 32 ITR
688, CIT vs. Chugandas 51 ITR 17 / 21 (SC) and CIT vs. National
Bank 202 ITR 559, the assessee contended that since FDRs were
not held as trading assets, nor the lending & borrowing was the
business of the assessee, interest could not be assessed under the
head "income from business and profession". However, the AO did
not accept the submissions of the assessee on the ground that in
terms of point 5(f) of bye-laws of the society, the general funds of
the society when not utilized in their business, were required to be
invested or deposited as required by section 71 of Gujarat
Cooperative Societies Act, 1962. Since the society had kept FDRs in
terms of provisions of section 71 of Gujarat Cooperative Societies
Act, 1962, and the assessee had obtained overdraft facilities against
the said FDRs and utilized the same for running its day to day
14
ITA No.1215&2021/Ahd/08
activities, the interest income has to be assessed as income from
business or profession. The AO further observed that the dominant
purpose of parking idle funds in the form of FDRs was to carry on its
business more efficiently and smoothly. Accordingly, the AO brought
the entire amount of Rs.13,32,660/- to tax under the head "income
from business or profession".
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs Calcutta National Bank Limited(In ... on 20 April, 1959
14. Adverting now to ground no.1 in the appeal of the Revenue
relating to an amount of Rs. 13,32,660/- assessed by the AO as
income under the head 'Business or Profession', the AO noticed
that the assessee reflected interest income of Rs.13,32,913/- under
the head "Income from other sources". The amount comprised
Rs.253/- on account of interest from SB Account, Rs.12,07,805/- on
account of interest on FDRs with the banks and Rs.1,24,855/- on
account of other interest. In response to the show cause notice, as
to why this amount be not assessed as income from business or
profession, the assessee vide letter dated 17-08-2007 replied that
earning of interest is not business of the assessee while the interest
paid on overdraft raised on assets was not at all linked up with the
securities from which interest was generated. Relying upon the
decision in the case of United Commercial Bank Ltd. vs. CIT 32 ITR
688, CIT vs. Chugandas 51 ITR 17 / 21 (SC) and CIT vs. National
Bank 202 ITR 559, the assessee contended that since FDRs were
not held as trading assets, nor the lending & borrowing was the
business of the assessee, interest could not be assessed under the
head "income from business and profession". However, the AO did
not accept the submissions of the assessee on the ground that in
terms of point 5(f) of bye-laws of the society, the general funds of
the society when not utilized in their business, were required to be
invested or deposited as required by section 71 of Gujarat
Cooperative Societies Act, 1962. Since the society had kept FDRs in
terms of provisions of section 71 of Gujarat Cooperative Societies
Act, 1962, and the assessee had obtained overdraft facilities against
the said FDRs and utilized the same for running its day to day
14
ITA No.1215&2021/Ahd/08
activities, the interest income has to be assessed as income from
business or profession. The AO further observed that the dominant
purpose of parking idle funds in the form of FDRs was to carry on its
business more efficiently and smoothly. Accordingly, the AO brought
the entire amount of Rs.13,32,660/- to tax under the head "income
from business or profession".
Karanpura Development Co., Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... on 31 August, 1961
4. The assessee is now in appeal before us against the aforesaid
findings of the learned CIT(A). The ld. AR on behalf of the assessee
while reiterating their submissions before the ld. CIT(A), contended
5
ITA No.1215&2021/Ahd/08
that the income from rent was enjoyed by the assessee as owner of
the property, which was separately shown in the balance sheet
under the head "fixed assets". W hile inviting our attention to the
balance sheet of the relevant year, the learned AR contended that
the assessee did not claim depreciation on the let out properties
since inception and the AO was swayed away by the fact of sale
proceeds of shopping centre no.3 shown as income under the head
business. Since the assessee did not carry out any systematic
activity in the form of business while letting out the property to BSNL
/ Post Office, relying upon the decisions in the cases of Shambhu
Investments Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT 263 ITR 143 (SC), CIT vs. Sarabhai
Pvt. Ltd. 263 ITR 197 (Guj), CIT vs. Chugandas & Co. 55 ITR 17
(SC), Karanpura Development Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 44 ITR 362 (SC), CIT
vs. National Storage P. Ltd. 48 ITR 577 (Bom) and CIT vs. New India
Insurance Ltd. 201 ITR 208 (Guj), the ld. AR contended that the ld.
CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the findings of the AO.On the
other hand, the ld. DR supported the findings of the lower
authorities.
Shambhu Investment (P) Ltd. vs Cit on 21 January, 2003
4. The assessee is now in appeal before us against the aforesaid
findings of the learned CIT(A). The ld. AR on behalf of the assessee
while reiterating their submissions before the ld. CIT(A), contended
5
ITA No.1215&2021/Ahd/08
that the income from rent was enjoyed by the assessee as owner of
the property, which was separately shown in the balance sheet
under the head "fixed assets". W hile inviting our attention to the
balance sheet of the relevant year, the learned AR contended that
the assessee did not claim depreciation on the let out properties
since inception and the AO was swayed away by the fact of sale
proceeds of shopping centre no.3 shown as income under the head
business. Since the assessee did not carry out any systematic
activity in the form of business while letting out the property to BSNL
/ Post Office, relying upon the decisions in the cases of Shambhu
Investments Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT 263 ITR 143 (SC), CIT vs. Sarabhai
Pvt. Ltd. 263 ITR 197 (Guj), CIT vs. Chugandas & Co. 55 ITR 17
(SC), Karanpura Development Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 44 ITR 362 (SC), CIT
vs. National Storage P. Ltd. 48 ITR 577 (Bom) and CIT vs. New India
Insurance Ltd. 201 ITR 208 (Guj), the ld. AR contended that the ld.
CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the findings of the AO.On the
other hand, the ld. DR supported the findings of the lower
authorities.
Cit vs Sarabhai (P) Ltd. on 21 November, 2002
Inter alia, the assessee relied upon the
decisions in the case of CIT vs. National storage Ltd.,66 ITR
596(SC),Manohar Singh vs. CIT,58 ITR 592(P&H),CIT vs. AP Small
Scale Industrial Development Corporation,175 ITR 352(AP),CIT vs.
Chugandas & Co. (1965) 55 ITR 17 (SC),Karanpura Development
Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1954) 44 ITR 362 (SC),Rampur Industries Ltd. vs.
CIT (1971) 82 ITR 23 (All),Parekh Traders vs. CIT (1984) 150 ITR
310 (Bom),Maharashtra Fertilizers & Chemicals vs. CIT (1984) 150
ITR 310 (Bom),CIT vs. National Storage P. Ltd. (1963) 48 ITR 577
(Bom),CIT vs. Sarabhai P. Ltd. (2003) 263 ITR 197,Shambhu
Investments P Ltd. vs. CIT (2003) 263 ITR 143 affirming Calcutta H
C in 249 ITR 47, Annamalai vs. CIT 12 ITR 254,Arunachalam vs. CIT
13 ITR 183,Bengal Jute vs. CIT 17 ITR 308,8 ORMSPSV FIRM VS.
CIT 39 ITR 327,Anaikar vs. CIT 186 ITR 175, Majumdar vs. CIT 15
ITR 484,East India Syndicate vs. CEPT 19 ITR 571,Ramniklal vs.
CIT 36 ITR 464,CIT vs. Phabiomal 158 ITR 773,N L Mehta vs. CIT
208 ITR 975,Indian Overseas Bank vs. CIT 246 ITR 206 and East
India Housing & Land Developing Trust Ltd. vs. CIT 42 ITR 49
(SC).However, the AO did not accept the submissions of the
assessee on the ground that the assessee's main object was to develop
and maintain the estates and thus, all the property owned by it was in the form of
stock-in-trade. In the instant case, the letting was only incidental and
subservient to the main business of the assessee and therefore, rental income
was not assessable under the head "Income from House property" but as
"Income form Business and Profession". The AO also observed that the society
had sold some shops held by it in "shopping centre no.3" and classified the
3
ITA No.1215&2021/Ahd/08
income derived from the same as "Income form Business and Profession".
Moreover, the dominant purpose of letting out of accommodation premises was to
carry on its business more efficiently and smoothly while the assessee had also
claimed depreciation on the said property as evident from the schedule of assets
i.e. the schedule detailing properties on which the "Sangh" has claimed the
depreciation besides debiting repair and maintenance charges to its P&L
account. Moreover, the assessee did not establish that these properties were not
held by it as "Commercial Asset". The assessee had not given the properties in
question on rent / lease soon alter their construction and had used for these for
its own business. Thus, these commercial assets let out to other persons i.e.
BSNL and Post Office for use in their business or trade, was the profit of business
irrespective of the manner in which asset was exploited by the owner of the
business. The AO also drew support from the return of Income(s) filed by the
assessee for the AY 2006-07 and AY 2007-08 wherein more and more properties
were shown to be let out.
Abhishekh Steel Industries Ltd.,, ... vs D.C.I.T. Central Cricle, Raipur on 25 October, 2021
Inter alia, the assessee relied upon the
decisions in the case of CIT vs. National storage Ltd.,66 ITR
596(SC),Manohar Singh vs. CIT,58 ITR 592(P&H),CIT vs. AP Small
Scale Industrial Development Corporation,175 ITR 352(AP),CIT vs.
Chugandas & Co. (1965) 55 ITR 17 (SC),Karanpura Development
Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1954) 44 ITR 362 (SC),Rampur Industries Ltd. vs.
CIT (1971) 82 ITR 23 (All),Parekh Traders vs. CIT (1984) 150 ITR
310 (Bom),Maharashtra Fertilizers & Chemicals vs. CIT (1984) 150
ITR 310 (Bom),CIT vs. National Storage P. Ltd. (1963) 48 ITR 577
(Bom),CIT vs. Sarabhai P. Ltd. (2003) 263 ITR 197,Shambhu
Investments P Ltd. vs. CIT (2003) 263 ITR 143 affirming Calcutta H
C in 249 ITR 47, Annamalai vs. CIT 12 ITR 254,Arunachalam vs. CIT
13 ITR 183,Bengal Jute vs. CIT 17 ITR 308,8 ORMSPSV FIRM VS.
CIT 39 ITR 327,Anaikar vs. CIT 186 ITR 175, Majumdar vs. CIT 15
ITR 484,East India Syndicate vs. CEPT 19 ITR 571,Ramniklal vs.
CIT 36 ITR 464,CIT vs. Phabiomal 158 ITR 773,N L Mehta vs. CIT
208 ITR 975,Indian Overseas Bank vs. CIT 246 ITR 206 and East
India Housing & Land Developing Trust Ltd. vs. CIT 42 ITR 49
(SC).However, the AO did not accept the submissions of the
assessee on the ground that the assessee's main object was to develop
and maintain the estates and thus, all the property owned by it was in the form of
stock-in-trade. In the instant case, the letting was only incidental and
subservient to the main business of the assessee and therefore, rental income
was not assessable under the head "Income from House property" but as
"Income form Business and Profession". The AO also observed that the society
had sold some shops held by it in "shopping centre no.3" and classified the
3
ITA No.1215&2021/Ahd/08
income derived from the same as "Income form Business and Profession".
Moreover, the dominant purpose of letting out of accommodation premises was to
carry on its business more efficiently and smoothly while the assessee had also
claimed depreciation on the said property as evident from the schedule of assets
i.e. the schedule detailing properties on which the "Sangh" has claimed the
depreciation besides debiting repair and maintenance charges to its P&L
account. Moreover, the assessee did not establish that these properties were not
held by it as "Commercial Asset". The assessee had not given the properties in
question on rent / lease soon alter their construction and had used for these for
its own business. Thus, these commercial assets let out to other persons i.e.
BSNL and Post Office for use in their business or trade, was the profit of business
irrespective of the manner in which asset was exploited by the owner of the
business. The AO also drew support from the return of Income(s) filed by the
assessee for the AY 2006-07 and AY 2007-08 wherein more and more properties
were shown to be let out.
Pr. Al. M. M. Annamalai Chettiar vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras on 26 October, 1964
Inter alia, the assessee relied upon the
decisions in the case of CIT vs. National storage Ltd.,66 ITR
596(SC),Manohar Singh vs. CIT,58 ITR 592(P&H),CIT vs. AP Small
Scale Industrial Development Corporation,175 ITR 352(AP),CIT vs.
Chugandas & Co. (1965) 55 ITR 17 (SC),Karanpura Development
Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1954) 44 ITR 362 (SC),Rampur Industries Ltd. vs.
CIT (1971) 82 ITR 23 (All),Parekh Traders vs. CIT (1984) 150 ITR
310 (Bom),Maharashtra Fertilizers & Chemicals vs. CIT (1984) 150
ITR 310 (Bom),CIT vs. National Storage P. Ltd. (1963) 48 ITR 577
(Bom),CIT vs. Sarabhai P. Ltd. (2003) 263 ITR 197,Shambhu
Investments P Ltd. vs. CIT (2003) 263 ITR 143 affirming Calcutta H
C in 249 ITR 47, Annamalai vs. CIT 12 ITR 254,Arunachalam vs. CIT
13 ITR 183,Bengal Jute vs. CIT 17 ITR 308,8 ORMSPSV FIRM VS.
CIT 39 ITR 327,Anaikar vs. CIT 186 ITR 175, Majumdar vs. CIT 15
ITR 484,East India Syndicate vs. CEPT 19 ITR 571,Ramniklal vs.
CIT 36 ITR 464,CIT vs. Phabiomal 158 ITR 773,N L Mehta vs. CIT
208 ITR 975,Indian Overseas Bank vs. CIT 246 ITR 206 and East
India Housing & Land Developing Trust Ltd. vs. CIT 42 ITR 49
(SC).However, the AO did not accept the submissions of the
assessee on the ground that the assessee's main object was to develop
and maintain the estates and thus, all the property owned by it was in the form of
stock-in-trade. In the instant case, the letting was only incidental and
subservient to the main business of the assessee and therefore, rental income
was not assessable under the head "Income from House property" but as
"Income form Business and Profession". The AO also observed that the society
had sold some shops held by it in "shopping centre no.3" and classified the
3
ITA No.1215&2021/Ahd/08
income derived from the same as "Income form Business and Profession".
Moreover, the dominant purpose of letting out of accommodation premises was to
carry on its business more efficiently and smoothly while the assessee had also
claimed depreciation on the said property as evident from the schedule of assets
i.e. the schedule detailing properties on which the "Sangh" has claimed the
depreciation besides debiting repair and maintenance charges to its P&L
account. Moreover, the assessee did not establish that these properties were not
held by it as "Commercial Asset". The assessee had not given the properties in
question on rent / lease soon alter their construction and had used for these for
its own business. Thus, these commercial assets let out to other persons i.e.
BSNL and Post Office for use in their business or trade, was the profit of business
irrespective of the manner in which asset was exploited by the owner of the
business. The AO also drew support from the return of Income(s) filed by the
assessee for the AY 2006-07 and AY 2007-08 wherein more and more properties
were shown to be let out.
R. M. Arunachalam vs Commissioner Of Income Tax,Madras on 9 July, 1997
Inter alia, the assessee relied upon the
decisions in the case of CIT vs. National storage Ltd.,66 ITR
596(SC),Manohar Singh vs. CIT,58 ITR 592(P&H),CIT vs. AP Small
Scale Industrial Development Corporation,175 ITR 352(AP),CIT vs.
Chugandas & Co. (1965) 55 ITR 17 (SC),Karanpura Development
Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1954) 44 ITR 362 (SC),Rampur Industries Ltd. vs.
CIT (1971) 82 ITR 23 (All),Parekh Traders vs. CIT (1984) 150 ITR
310 (Bom),Maharashtra Fertilizers & Chemicals vs. CIT (1984) 150
ITR 310 (Bom),CIT vs. National Storage P. Ltd. (1963) 48 ITR 577
(Bom),CIT vs. Sarabhai P. Ltd. (2003) 263 ITR 197,Shambhu
Investments P Ltd. vs. CIT (2003) 263 ITR 143 affirming Calcutta H
C in 249 ITR 47, Annamalai vs. CIT 12 ITR 254,Arunachalam vs. CIT
13 ITR 183,Bengal Jute vs. CIT 17 ITR 308,8 ORMSPSV FIRM VS.
CIT 39 ITR 327,Anaikar vs. CIT 186 ITR 175, Majumdar vs. CIT 15
ITR 484,East India Syndicate vs. CEPT 19 ITR 571,Ramniklal vs.
CIT 36 ITR 464,CIT vs. Phabiomal 158 ITR 773,N L Mehta vs. CIT
208 ITR 975,Indian Overseas Bank vs. CIT 246 ITR 206 and East
India Housing & Land Developing Trust Ltd. vs. CIT 42 ITR 49
(SC).However, the AO did not accept the submissions of the
assessee on the ground that the assessee's main object was to develop
and maintain the estates and thus, all the property owned by it was in the form of
stock-in-trade. In the instant case, the letting was only incidental and
subservient to the main business of the assessee and therefore, rental income
was not assessable under the head "Income from House property" but as
"Income form Business and Profession". The AO also observed that the society
had sold some shops held by it in "shopping centre no.3" and classified the
3
ITA No.1215&2021/Ahd/08
income derived from the same as "Income form Business and Profession".
Moreover, the dominant purpose of letting out of accommodation premises was to
carry on its business more efficiently and smoothly while the assessee had also
claimed depreciation on the said property as evident from the schedule of assets
i.e. the schedule detailing properties on which the "Sangh" has claimed the
depreciation besides debiting repair and maintenance charges to its P&L
account. Moreover, the assessee did not establish that these properties were not
held by it as "Commercial Asset". The assessee had not given the properties in
question on rent / lease soon alter their construction and had used for these for
its own business. Thus, these commercial assets let out to other persons i.e.
BSNL and Post Office for use in their business or trade, was the profit of business
irrespective of the manner in which asset was exploited by the owner of the
business. The AO also drew support from the return of Income(s) filed by the
assessee for the AY 2006-07 and AY 2007-08 wherein more and more properties
were shown to be let out.
Northern Bengal Jute Trading Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax. on 25 January, 1967
Inter alia, the assessee relied upon the
decisions in the case of CIT vs. National storage Ltd.,66 ITR
596(SC),Manohar Singh vs. CIT,58 ITR 592(P&H),CIT vs. AP Small
Scale Industrial Development Corporation,175 ITR 352(AP),CIT vs.
Chugandas & Co. (1965) 55 ITR 17 (SC),Karanpura Development
Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1954) 44 ITR 362 (SC),Rampur Industries Ltd. vs.
CIT (1971) 82 ITR 23 (All),Parekh Traders vs. CIT (1984) 150 ITR
310 (Bom),Maharashtra Fertilizers & Chemicals vs. CIT (1984) 150
ITR 310 (Bom),CIT vs. National Storage P. Ltd. (1963) 48 ITR 577
(Bom),CIT vs. Sarabhai P. Ltd. (2003) 263 ITR 197,Shambhu
Investments P Ltd. vs. CIT (2003) 263 ITR 143 affirming Calcutta H
C in 249 ITR 47, Annamalai vs. CIT 12 ITR 254,Arunachalam vs. CIT
13 ITR 183,Bengal Jute vs. CIT 17 ITR 308,8 ORMSPSV FIRM VS.
CIT 39 ITR 327,Anaikar vs. CIT 186 ITR 175, Majumdar vs. CIT 15
ITR 484,East India Syndicate vs. CEPT 19 ITR 571,Ramniklal vs.
CIT 36 ITR 464,CIT vs. Phabiomal 158 ITR 773,N L Mehta vs. CIT
208 ITR 975,Indian Overseas Bank vs. CIT 246 ITR 206 and East
India Housing & Land Developing Trust Ltd. vs. CIT 42 ITR 49
(SC).However, the AO did not accept the submissions of the
assessee on the ground that the assessee's main object was to develop
and maintain the estates and thus, all the property owned by it was in the form of
stock-in-trade. In the instant case, the letting was only incidental and
subservient to the main business of the assessee and therefore, rental income
was not assessable under the head "Income from House property" but as
"Income form Business and Profession". The AO also observed that the society
had sold some shops held by it in "shopping centre no.3" and classified the
3
ITA No.1215&2021/Ahd/08
income derived from the same as "Income form Business and Profession".
Moreover, the dominant purpose of letting out of accommodation premises was to
carry on its business more efficiently and smoothly while the assessee had also
claimed depreciation on the said property as evident from the schedule of assets
i.e. the schedule detailing properties on which the "Sangh" has claimed the
depreciation besides debiting repair and maintenance charges to its P&L
account. Moreover, the assessee did not establish that these properties were not
held by it as "Commercial Asset". The assessee had not given the properties in
question on rent / lease soon alter their construction and had used for these for
its own business. Thus, these commercial assets let out to other persons i.e.
BSNL and Post Office for use in their business or trade, was the profit of business
irrespective of the manner in which asset was exploited by the owner of the
business. The AO also drew support from the return of Income(s) filed by the
assessee for the AY 2006-07 and AY 2007-08 wherein more and more properties
were shown to be let out.