2019 (4) TMI 1312

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....was justified, in not upholding the AO's findings that the income derived by the assessee from letting out of its properties, held as stock-in-trade, represents income from house property, by relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chennai Properties Pvt. Ltd. Without appreciating the facts of the case of M/s. Chennai Properties Pvt. Ltd. Are distinguishable in so far as the main object of Chennai Properties Pvt. Ltd. Was to acquire and give properties on rent, whereas, the assessee firm is engaged in development and construction of properties? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in not upholding the pro-rata disallowance of Rs. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion Bench of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax V. Neha Builders (P.) Ltd. reported in 2008 (296) ITR 661 and of the Supreme Court in the case of Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd. V/s. Commissioner of Income-Tax, reported in [2015] 377 ITR 673 to come to the conclusion that the Assessing Officer incorrectly held that the income was from house property and not business income. 4. The Tribunal, having noted the relevant facts, by placed reliance on the above decisions of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Neha Builders (supra) and of the Supreme Court in the case of Chennai Properties (supra). In Neha Builders (supra), the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court was considering a very similar issue. ....