Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Raj Dadarkar House Property Biz Profits PDF
Raj Dadarkar House Property Biz Profits PDF
org
REPORTABLE
VERSUS
JUDGMENT
A.K. SIKRI, J.
before the High Court on which High Court has rendered the
Civil Appeal Nos.6455-6460 of 2017 (@ SLP (c) Nos. 17277-17282 of 2015) Page 1 of 21
http://www.itatonline.org
have arisen for consideration, may first be taken note of. These
the above said buildings and admeasuring around 17,925 sq. ft.
Civil Appeal Nos.6455-6460 of 2017 (@ SLP (c) Nos. 17277-17282 of 2015) Page 2 of 21
http://www.itatonline.org
terms of the auction, it was the appellant who had to make the
Civil Appeal Nos.6455-6460 of 2017 (@ SLP (c) Nos. 17277-17282 of 2015) Page 3 of 21
http://www.itatonline.org
Civil Appeal Nos.6455-6460 of 2017 (@ SLP (c) Nos. 17277-17282 of 2015) Page 4 of 21
http://www.itatonline.org
4) The appellant filed the returns of income and right from the year
1999 till 2004, it had been offering the income from the aforesaid
issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act and in response to the
framed, computed the income from the shops, and the stalls
Civil Appeal Nos.6455-6460 of 2017 (@ SLP (c) Nos. 17277-17282 of 2015) Page 5 of 21
http://www.itatonline.org
reversed the order of the CIT (Appeals) and confirmed the action
the appellant.
Civil Appeal Nos.6455-6460 of 2017 (@ SLP (c) Nos. 17277-17282 of 2015) Page 6 of 21
http://www.itatonline.org
7) The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the High
learned counsel pointed out that the High Court confined its
learned counsel argued that the entire focus of the High Court
ignored that the main business of the appellant was to take the
the premises was the business of the appellant firm and income
Civil Appeal Nos.6455-6460 of 2017 (@ SLP (c) Nos. 17277-17282 of 2015) Page 7 of 21
http://www.itatonline.org
under:
object of the appellant. This was the sole and the only activity of
the year 1999 till 2004, the appellant had been offering the
Civil Appeal Nos.6455-6460 of 2017 (@ SLP (c) Nos. 17277-17282 of 2015) Page 8 of 21
http://www.itatonline.org
had argued before the Assessing Officer that it was not the lessee
We may point out that the High Court took note of the provisions
reads as under:
Civil Appeal Nos.6455-6460 of 2017 (@ SLP (c) Nos. 17277-17282 of 2015) Page 9 of 21
http://www.itatonline.org
11) Thereafter, the High Court pointed out the circumstances under
Civil Appeal Nos.6455-6460 of 2017 (@ SLP (c) Nos. 17277-17282 of 2015) Page 10 of 21
http://www.itatonline.org
area wherein the appellant was the successful tenderor; the BMC
owner of the premises in question, since the letting out the place
income from business and not income from the house property.
His submission was that the dominant test has to be applied and
Civil Appeal Nos.6455-6460 of 2017 (@ SLP (c) Nos. 17277-17282 of 2015) Page 11 of 21
http://www.itatonline.org
Civil Appeal Nos.6455-6460 of 2017 (@ SLP (c) Nos. 17277-17282 of 2015) Page 12 of 21
http://www.itatonline.org
is also to be borne in mind that income tax is only One Tax which
have frequently arisen under the two heads with which we are
house property on the one hand and profits and gains from
applied for determining the real nature of income are laid down in
Section 22 of the Act are satisfied with primary ingredient that the
Civil Appeal Nos.6455-6460 of 2017 (@ SLP (c) Nos. 17277-17282 of 2015) Page 13 of 21
http://www.itatonline.org
the income may have been derived from letting out of the
15) What is the test which has to be applied to determine whether the
Civil Appeal Nos.6455-6460 of 2017 (@ SLP (c) Nos. 17277-17282 of 2015) Page 14 of 21
http://www.itatonline.org
Bench of this Court in Sultan Bros. (P) Ltd. v. CIT, (1964) 5 SCR
Civil Appeal Nos.6455-6460 of 2017 (@ SLP (c) Nos. 17277-17282 of 2015) Page 15 of 21
http://www.itatonline.org
sub-letting them.
“deemed owner”.
as income from the business. Before us, apart from relying upon
the learned counsel for the appellant has not produced or referred
Civil Appeal Nos.6455-6460 of 2017 (@ SLP (c) Nos. 17277-17282 of 2015) Page 16 of 21
http://www.itatonline.org
18) The ITAT being the last forum insofar as factual determination is
mentioned above, the learned counsel for the appellant did not
argue on this aspect and did not make any efforts to show as to
how the aforesaid findings were perverse. It was for the appellant
Civil Appeal Nos.6455-6460 of 2017 (@ SLP (c) Nos. 17277-17282 of 2015) Page 17 of 21
http://www.itatonline.org
part of the Bench found that the entire income of the appellant
was through letting out of the two properties it owned and there
letting out of the said properties, which was the business of the
CIT, (1962) 44 ITR 362 was applicable and the judgment of this
canvassing:
Civil Appeal Nos.6455-6460 of 2017 (@ SLP (c) Nos. 17277-17282 of 2015) Page 18 of 21
http://www.itatonline.org
20) In Rayala Corporation (P) Ltd., fact situation was identical to the
Civil Appeal Nos.6455-6460 of 2017 (@ SLP (c) Nos. 17277-17282 of 2015) Page 19 of 21
http://www.itatonline.org
21) For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the opinion that these
............................................J.
(A.K. SIKRI)
.............................................J.
(ASHOK BHUSHAN)
NEW DELHI;
MAY 09, 2017.
Civil Appeal Nos.6455-6460 of 2017 (@ SLP (c) Nos. 17277-17282 of 2015) Page 20 of 21
http://www.itatonline.org
VERSUS
Date : 09/05/2017
This matter was called on for pronouncement of
judgment today.
For Petitioner(s)
Mr. Bhargava V. Desai, Adv.
For Respondent(s)
Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Adv.
Civil Appeal Nos. of 2017 (@ SLP (c) Nos. 17277-17282 of 2015) Page 21 of 21