w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



M/s. Sultan Brothers Private Ltd. Bombay , Petitioner v. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City II, Bombay


Company & Directors' Information:- CITY CORPORATION LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45202PN2003PLC018435

Company & Directors' Information:- SULTAN BROTHERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70101MH1942PTC003484

Company & Directors' Information:- BOMBAY COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U99999MH1918PTC000144

Company & Directors' Information:- BROTHERS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201JH2016PTC003665

Company & Directors' Information:- K BROTHERS PVT LTD [Under Liquidation] CIN = U51900WB1945PTC012198

    Income-tax Reference No. 69 of 1958

    Decided On, 02 July 1959

    At, High Court of Judicature at Bombay

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.T. DESAI

    For the Petitioner: N.A. Palkhiwalla, Kolah, Advocates. For the Respondent: G.N. Joshi, R.J. Joshi, Advocates.



Judgment Text

Shah, J.

1. The assessees who are a limited company obtained on lease a plot of land at the Backbay Reclamation in Bombay and put up a residential building which could be adapted for use as a hotel, and furnished the same by installing furniture and fixtures and let it out to a tenant under a deed dated 30-8-1943 for six years for using it as a hotel. After the expiry of the first period of lease another deed of lease was executed on 13-8-1949. Under that lease the lessee agreed to pay a net monthly rental of Rs. 5,950/- lor the lease of building and at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- for the hire of furniture and fixtures. Initially, the Income-tax Officer assessed the income received under the lease under S. 12 of the Income-tax Act. For the assessment year 1952-53, the assessment proceedings were brought before the Tribunal and the Tribunal observed in the course of its judgment though that question did not arise in the case that 'the question whether income from that property should be computed under S. 9 or under S. 12 deserves further scrutiny'. The Income-tax Officer then computed for the assessment year 1953-54 income out of the building under S. 9 of the Income-tax Act and the income derived from hiring of the furniture and fixtures under S. 12 of the Act. Against the order passed by the Income-tax Officer, the assessees appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. That Officer substantially confirmed the order passed by the Income-tax Officer. There was an appeal by the assessees to the Tribunal and the Tribunal affirmed the view of the taxing authorities. At the instance of the assessees, the Tribunal has referred the following question :

'Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the income derived from letting of the building constructed on Plot No. 7 is properly to be computed under S. 9, 10 or under S. 12 of the Income-tax Act'.

2. The question whether the income derived from the letting of the building and the furniture can be assessed under S. 10 is easily answered. Neither before the Income-tax Officer nor before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was the contention ever advanced that the assessees were letting out the building as a business venture. This contention was advanced for the first time before the Tribunal and the Tribunal negatived that contention holding that there were no materials which justified it. It was suggested that from the ownership of the property used as an asset of a business concern income was being obtained. In our view, there is nothing in the deed of lease which supports the contention of the assessee, nor are there any materials on the record which justify that inference. The income derived from the letting of the building and the furniture and fixtures cannot be computed under S. 10 of the Act.

3. Section 9 of the Income-tax Act makes provision for computation of income under the head 'Property'. Section 10 makes provision for computation of income received from business and S. 12 for computation of income received from other sources. By clause (3) of S. 12 which was added by Act 7 of 1939 it was enacted that where an assessee lets on. hire machinery, plant or furniture belonging to him, he shall be entitled to allowances in accordance with the provisions of clauses (iv), (v), (vi) and (vii) of sub-section (2) of S. 10. Evidently by enacting this clause, the Legislature intended to give the benefit of the four clauses of S. 10(2) to an assessee who was not carrying on a business of letting out on hire machinery, plant or furniture but who had as an owner of the property let out the same. By clause 4. which was added by Act 23 of 1941, an additional provision was made granting the benefit of the provisions of clauses (iv), (v), (vi) and (vii) of sub-section (2) to the owner of the building when he had let on hire machinery, plant or furniture belonging to him, and also building, and the letting out of the building was inseparable from the letting of the machinery, plant or furniture. For computation of income received from buildings under S. 9 a prevision for granting allowances in accordance with clauses (iv), (v), (vi) and (vii) of sub-section 2 of S. 10 has not been made. Evidently by clause (4) of S. 12, a different category was sought to be created in respect of which the prescribed allowances were to be given to the owner of the building in the computation of his income. Clauses (3) and (4) of S. 12 have, in our judgment, to be read together. By clause 3 an assessee becomes entitled to the prescribed allowances before his income received from letting out of machinery, plant or furniture is included in his total income, and to a similar allowance in respect of certain buildings under clause (iv). But that benefit can only be given in respect of Building, provided the conditions prescribed by sub-section (4) of S. 12 are fulfilled; and those conditions are that there is a letting on hire machinery, plant or furniture belonging to the assessee, that along with that letting the buildings are let out and that the letting of the buildings is inseparable from the letting of the said machinery, plant or furniture. In our judgment, it was intended by the Legislature that the primary letting must be of the machinery, plant or furniture and that together with such letting or along with such letting there is a letting of buildings, the two lettings being inseparable from each other. It is only if these conditions are fulfilled that the taxable income of the buildings will be computed under sub-section (4) of S. 12. We are unable to accept the argument of Mr. Palkhiwalla that if there is a letting on hire of machinery, plant or furniture and there is also a letting of buildings and that the two lettings are inseparable, in computing the income from the building, the lessor will be entitled to the allowances under clauses (iv), (v), (vi) and (vii) of sub-section (2) of S. 10. The condition of inseparability of the lettings is not the only condition prescribed by the Legislature to enable the lessor of the building to qualify for the benefits of the allowances under the specified clauses of S. 10(2).We are therefore of the view that if the primary letting is of machinery, plant or furniture and the secondary letting is of the buildings and the two lettings are inseparable, then only will the provisions of sub-section (4) of S. 12 apply.

4. Mr. Palkhiwalla contends that even if that be the true interpretation of sub-section (4) of S. 12, in the present case, the primary letting is of the furniture and fixtures and the secondary letting is of the building. He invites our attention to the fact that a substantial amount has been spent for providing furniture and fixtures, and the monthly rental of the furniture and fixtures above is Rs. 5,000/- whereas the rental of the building is Rs. 5,950/-. Mr. Palkhiwalla contends that under the terms of the lease no special importance having been given to the letting of the building on the one hand or furniture and fixtures on the other, the court must have regard to the fact that the entire unit was intended to be let for the purpose of a hotel and was in fact let out for the purpose of running a hotel, boarding and lodging house or a Restaurant, and that it must be held that the intention was to let out the unit in which the primary letting was of the furniture or fittings or fixtures. We are unable on the plain words used in the document to accept that contention. What has been let out is the building constructed by the assessees, and for making the building fit for running a hotel or a boarding and lodging house of a Restaurant, furniture and fixtures have

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

been installed. It cannot be said in the case of such a lease that the lease was primarily of furniture and not of the building. 5. Mr. Palkhiwalla invites our attention to the facts that in paragraph 7 of the judgment of the Tribunal, an erroneous statement was made by them as to the true effect of S. 10(2)(vi) and (v) but we do not think that anything turns in this case upon the alleged erroneous statement relating to the true effect of those clauses. 6. On the view taken by us, the question will be answered as follows : 'the income from the building will be computed under S. 9, income from furniture and fixtures under S. 12(3) and that no part of the income is taxable under S. 10"". The assessee to pay the costs of the Commissioner. No order on the Notice of Motion. Reference answered.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

18-06-2020 State Bank of India, Bombay Thru. Chairman & Others Versus S.B. Singh High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
16-06-2020 Mr.X Versus The Inspector of Police, Thilagar Thidal Police Station, Madurai City & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
12-06-2020 Ventura Textiles Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Income Tax-Mumbai City-11 High Court of Judicature at Bombay
09-06-2020 Vadilal Maganlal Trevadia Versus Bombay Municipal Corporation & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
03-06-2020 Entertainment City Ltd. Versus Aspek Media Private Ltd. High Court of Delhi
01-06-2020 Vasu Versus M/s. Shriram City Union Finance Ltd., Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-05-2020 The City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality & Another Versus Moipone Fleet (PTY) Ltd Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa
21-05-2020 Mohammed Mujeeb Versus State by Electronic City Ps, Rep. by State Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka
27-04-2020 Commercial Taxes Officer Versus M/s. Bombay Machinery Store Supreme Court of India
15-04-2020 The Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
16-03-2020 Selvakumar Versus State represented by, The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi City, Thoothukudi South PS, Thoothukudi & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
13-03-2020 Rajesh T. Shah & Others Versus The Tax Recovery Officer City - II Mumbai & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
13-03-2020 G. Gopalakrishnan & Others Versus State rep by the Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch, Madurai Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
12-03-2020 State of Uttar Pradesh Versus High Court of Judicature at Allahabad through Registrar General Allahabad, U.P. (In Re: Banners on Roadside in The City of Lucknow) Supreme Court of India
09-03-2020 In-Re Banners Placed On Road Side In The City Of Lucknow Versus State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
05-03-2020 M/s. Essar Shipping Limited Versus Commissioner of Income-tax, City III, Mumbai High Court of Judicature at Bombay
04-03-2020 Picturehouse Media Ltd., Chennai Versus Bombay Stock Exchange Ltd. & Another SEBI Securities amp Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
28-02-2020 The State of Maharashtra (Through Anti Corruption Bureau) Greater Bombay Unit, Gr. Bombay) Versus Talimunisa Rais Ahmed High Court of Judicature at Bombay
26-02-2020 The Administrator, City and Industrial Development Corporation [CIDCO] & Others Versus Padmakar & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
24-02-2020 Saurabh Kar & Another Versus Kolkata West International City Pvt. Ltd. & Another West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
21-02-2020 Shamim Makmood Khan Versus Dr. K. Venkateshan, Commissioner of Police, Pune City & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
14-02-2020 M/s. Dharmaratnakara Rai Bahadur Arcot Narainswamy Mudaliar Chattram Charities & Others Versus M/s. Bhaskar Raju & Brothers & Others Supreme Court of India
13-02-2020 Dr. R. Krishnamurthy & Another Versus The City Public Prosecutor, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-02-2020 Amit Kishan Bagade & Others Versus Bombay Environmental Action Group & Others Supreme Court of India
10-02-2020 Subhendu Pattanayak Versus Bulls Brothers commodity Pvt. Ltd. & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
07-02-2020 Rajankumar & Brothers (Impex) Versus Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Supreme Court of India
06-02-2020 Soumitra Mukherjee Versus Green Tech IT City Pvt. Ltd. West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
06-02-2020 Samar Roychoudhury Versus Global Health City West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
05-02-2020 Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay through P.P. Dhawade Versus Mehul Gopaldas Shah & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
03-02-2020 A. Rajendran Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Police (Armed Reserve) Chennai City Polie, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-02-2020 City Union Bank Limited V/S Manjunatha Pharma and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Chennai
01-02-2020 City Union Bank Limited V/S A. Manikandan and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Chennai
01-02-2020 City Union Bank Limited V/S A. Manikandan and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Chennai
30-01-2020 M/s. ARN City Homes, Rep. by its Managing Partner Pa. Paranthaman Versus V. Satishkumar High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-01-2020 Cyrus Broacha, Performer and Script Writer, CNN-IBN TV Channel & Others Versus The City Public Prosecutor, High Court Campus, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-01-2020 Messrs Baf-Hira Builders Private Limited & Others Versus The Collector of Bombay Suburban District & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
23-01-2020 The State of Maharashtra Versus Abdulazad Abdulkadar Bhatari, Vendor & Proprietor of M/s. Bhatari Brothers & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
22-01-2020 Collector, Mumbai City Versus M/s Redstone Realtors Through Its Director & Another Supreme Court of India
21-01-2020 Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Versus Pre-Stress Products (India) High Court of Judicature at Bombay
13-01-2020 Shibu Vishwanathan Acharya & Others V/S Sahara Prime City Ltd. & Others Maharshtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Nagpur
13-01-2020 Ravi Shankar J. Bomanwar & Others V/S Sahara Prime City Ltd., Lucknow & Others Maharshtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Nagpur
10-01-2020 Doddanavar Brothers (mine Owners) Versus C.C., C.E. & S.T-Belgaum Customs Excise amp Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Bangalore
10-01-2020 Doddanavar Brothers V/S C.C., C.E. & S.T-Belgaum Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Regional Bench Bangalore
09-01-2020 Narendra @ Chotya Mahadev Balkawade Versus The Commissioner of Police Pune City & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
08-01-2020 Tvl. Brahma Sakthi Tin Factory, Rep. By its Partner SVS Velkumar, Villupuram Versus The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, rep. By its Secretary, City Civil Court Building, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-01-2020 Sahara Prime City Limited & Another Versus Lata Gope National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
07-01-2020 Rajkamal Agarwal & Another V/S Sahara Prime City Limited, Through its Managing Director, Lucknow & Another Maharshtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Nagpur
06-01-2020 The Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation Ltd V/S Commissioner of Central Excise, Meeurt-II Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Regional Bench Allahabad
03-01-2020 Chaitanya Super Market Versus Shriram City Union Finance Limited & Others Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
02-01-2020 Pradip Chandrakant Indulkar Versus The Municipal Corporation for the City of Thane through the Commissioner & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
20-12-2019 Shashikant & Others Versus Sahara India Pariwar Sahara Prime City Limited & Others Maharshtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Nagpur
12-12-2019 R. Elayaselvan & Others Versus The City Public Prosecutor, City Civil Court Buildings, High Court Campus, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-12-2019 Tarabai Lakshman Bajad Versus State of Maharashtra, through PSO P.S. Washim City, Washim In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
09-12-2019 M/s. The Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise Supreme Court of India
20-11-2019 Nisha Meeran & Others Versus Sahara Prime City Ltd. & Others Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
18-11-2019 T.R. Harish & Others Versus The State of Karnataka by Hanumanthanagar Police, Bengaluru City Represented by State Public Prosecutor, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
18-11-2019 Muncherji Nusserwanji Cama, Managing Director of Company “Bombay Samachar Pvt. Ltd.” & Another Versus The State of Maharashtra Through Public Prosecutor, High Court, Bombay & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
15-11-2019 Sujeet Suvalal Lodha & Others Versus Deputy Registrar Pune City-1 & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
06-11-2019 City & Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. Versus Lambda Therapeutic Research Ltd. & Others Supreme Court of India
31-10-2019 Raj Kumar Brothers Versus Life Essentials Personal Care Private Ltd. High Court of Delhi
22-10-2019 Municipal Corpn. of Greater Mumbai Versus Harish Lamba of Bombay, Indian Inhabitant & Others Supreme Court of India
15-10-2019 Ameer, Proprietor, Kasaragod & Another Versus M/s. B. Amoo & Brothers, Proprietor, Hotel Airlines, Kasaragod, Represented by Its Managing Partners, B. Abdul Rahiman, B. Abdulla & Others High Court of Kerala
10-10-2019 Sanjay Kumar Singla Versus Sahara Prime City Ltd. Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Jaipur
10-10-2019 Narayan Das Najwani & Others Versus Sahara Prime City Ltd. & Others Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Jaipur
10-10-2019 S.R. Venkatesh Babu Versus The Registrar, City Civil Court & Others High Court of Karnataka
10-10-2019 Bombay Salesian Society, a Society registered under Societies Registration Act; and a public trust registered under Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
30-09-2019 M/s. Shriram City Union Finance Ltd., Rep. by its Authorized Signatory A. Vinolin Versus M/s. Shri Ramana Geavy Engineering P. Ltd., Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-09-2019 La'Builde Associates & Another Versus City & Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited, through its Managing Director & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
26-09-2019 P. Arumugam Versus The Commissioner of Police, Salem City Police, Salem & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-09-2019 The Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Chennai City Water Ways Scheme, Chennai Versus K. Kannaki & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-09-2019 V. Rajan Selvin Versus The Commissioner of Police O/O. The Commissioner of Police Palayamkottai Tirunelveli City & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-09-2019 PSG Sons Charities Represented by its Chief Executive Coimbatore Versus Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation, Represented by its Assistant Commissioner, Coimbatore High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-09-2019 S. Zahid Hussain & Brothers Versus State of Bihar & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
13-09-2019 Bombay Slum Redevelopment Corporation Limited Versus Samir Narain Bhojwani High Court of Judicature at Bombay
13-09-2019 Sahara Prime City Ltd. & Others Versus Tapasya Palawat National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
06-09-2019 M/s. Avinash Hitech City 2 Society & Others Versus Boddu Manikya Malini & Others Supreme Court of India
05-09-2019 Electrical Contractors Association of Maharashtra, Through its Chairman: Nilesh Subhash Tivramkar Versus City & Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
29-08-2019 M/s. V.R. Muthu & Brothers, Represented by its Partner, R. Muthu Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Appellate Authority under the Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act), Madurai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-08-2019 Biswanath Deb Versus M/s. Greentech IT City Pvt. Ltd. West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
23-08-2019 N. Krishnamoorthy & Others Versus The Corporation of City of Bengaluru, Represented by Its Commissioner, Belgaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
19-08-2019 Akshay Kumar @ Kiran Versus State by Electronic City Police Station, Represented by the State Public Prosecutor, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
09-08-2019 Snehal Dias Versus State Through P.P. High Court of Bombay at Panaji Goa In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
09-08-2019 Pratibha Shipping Company Limited (In Liquidation), Owner of MT Pratibha Cauvery, Through Official Liquidator of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, Owners & Parties interested in the Vessel M.T. Pratibha Cauvery Presently berthed at the Port of Chennai & is represented herein by its Master Versus Praxis Energy Agents S.A., Rep. herein by its Power of Attorney Agent Ravindra Kumbhar & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-08-2019 M/s. Cosmos Realtors Joint Venture Through Authorized Signatory Suraj Parmar Versus The Municipal Corporation for the City of Thane through the Commissioner & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
06-08-2019 Rajendra Kumar Goyal & Another Versus South City Project (Kolkata) Ltd. & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
05-08-2019 K. Muthupandi Versus State Represented by Inspector of Police, Sooramangalam Police Station, Salem City High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-07-2019 R. Krishnamoorthy Versus The Commissioner, Erode City Municipal Corporation, Erode High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-07-2019 New India Assurance Co. Ltd. RG City Centre Local Shopping Centre, Delhi Versus Ashok Kumar Tiwari & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
23-07-2019 Doshi Brothers, Through its Proprietor, Bhupatrai Chimanlal Doshi Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
22-07-2019 S. Raghunathan Versus The Commissioner of Police, Tiruppur City & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-07-2019 Ayurvetic Spa, Rep. by its Proprietor, A. Mani Versus The Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore City & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-07-2019 Ratan N. Tata & Others Versus State of Maharashtra Though Government Pleader (Bombay High Court) & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
19-07-2019 M/s. Bombay Intelligence Security India Ltd. Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
15-07-2019 ILF Consulting Engineers Almondz Global Infra Consultant Ltd., New Delhi Versus M/s Bhagalpur Smart City Ltd, Bihar & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
09-07-2019 The Commissioner, Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation, Coimbatore Versus The Coimbatore District Consumer Co-Operative Wholesale Stores Limited, Registered Society under Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, Represented by the Deputy Registrar/Special Officer, R. Periasamy High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-06-2019 Mahendra Bhalchandra Shah & Others Versus Municipal Corporation of Grater Bombay & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
20-06-2019 Vaiko Versus The City Public Prosecutor Chennai City High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-06-2019 Padmini Nandakumar Nair Versus The Honourable High Court of Judicature at Bombay, through its Registrar General & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
12-06-2019 Samuels Versus Birmingham City Council United Kingdom Supreme Court
14-05-2019 M/s. Silver City Housing & Infrastructure Ltd. & Another Versus Preet Sharma & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC


LawyerServices is a Premium Legal Tech solution.


Lawyers, Law Firms, Government Departments and Corporates rely on us for, Workflow Automation, Data Aggregation, Timely Updates, Case Management, Intelligent Research, Latest Legal Data Updates and a LOT more!

If you are a legal professional, CONTACT US, in order to see how our UNIQUE solution can benefit your organization.

Features Intro Close Box