Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 35 (0.43 seconds)Section 6 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 9 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 269UA in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
East India Housing And Land Development ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... on 2 November, 1960
"8. With this background, we first refer to the judgment of
this Court in East India Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd.
case [East India Housing and Land Development Trust
Ltd. v. CIT, [1961] 42 ITR 49 (SC)] which has been relied upon by
the High Court. That was a case where the company was
incorporated with the object of buying and developing
landed properties and promoting and developing markets. Thus, the
main objective of the company was to develop the
landed properties into markets. It so happened that some shops and
stalls, which were developed by it, had been rented out
and income was derived from the renting of the said shops and
stalls. In those facts, the question which arose for consideration was:
Asst Cit 17(3), Mumbai vs Sane & Doshi Enterprises, Mumbai on 18 May, 2018
So far as the
chargeability of income from letting out of these unsold flats is
concerned, the controversy is now settled by Hon‟ble Bombay High
Court vide its orders dated 09-04-2005 for AY 2000-01 to 2008-09 by
holding that income is to be assessee as income from house property
even if they are unsold inventory of stock-in-trade held as business
assets .We have also noted that special leave has been granted by
Hon‟ble Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India
in SLP filed by Revenue in CIT v. Sane & Doshi Enterprises reported in
(2017) 77 taxmann.com 288(SC). The appeal of the assessee for AY
2009-10 has been heard by the tribunal wherein the issue before the
tribunal was identical as is now before us in this appeal and the
24
I.T.A. No.998/Mum/2016
tribunal decided the issue against assessee by holding that the
assessee is engaged in business of real estate and the income from
sale of flats is to be brought to tax as business income under the head
„Profits and gains from business or profession‟ and not to be brought
to tax as income from capital gains. The tribunal after detailed
analysis of the facts and circumstances surrounding the case has
come to the conclusion for AY 2009-10 that the assessee was engaged
in the business of real estate and income from the sale of said flats
were held to be taxable under the head income from business by
tribunal and it was observed by the tribunal that the assessee has
changed nomenclature to „investments‟ wef 01-04-2005 in its books of
accounts only to avail benefit of indexation and merely changing the
said flats in books of accounts as „investments‟ is not sufficient . The
assessee on its part had contended before the tribunal that gains
arising from sale of these flats should be brought to tax as income
from long term capital gains and the benefit of cost inflation index be
also granted to the assessee which was repelled by the tribunal vide
its orders for AY 2009-10. The assessee has filed an appeal before
Hon‟ble Bombay High Court for AY 2009-10 against order of the
tribunal in appeal in ITA no. 250 of 2015, wherein the substantial
question of law has been admitted by Hon‟ble Bombay High Court vide
orders dated 31.10.2017 against the aforesaid order of the tribunal
for AY 2009-10 , which is reproduced here under:-