+Ita 401/2025Ansal Housing Limited (Formerly Rohit Jain Knownas Ansal Housing And Construction Ltd v. Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax

$~95, 97 to 101 & 103 *INTHEHIGHCOURTOFDELHIATNEWDELHI +ITA 393/2025 +ITA 395/2025 +ITA 396/2025 +ITA 397/2025 +ITA 398/2025 +ITA 399/2025 +ITA 401/2025ANSAL HOUSING LIMITED (FORMERLY ROHIT JAIN KNOWNAS ANSAL HOUSING AND CONSTRUCTION LTD).....AppellantThrough:Mr. Vaibhav Kulkarni, Mr. HimanshuAggarwal, Mr. Akash Shukla, Ms.Kanika Sethi, Advs.ANSAL HOUSING LIMITED (FORMERLY ROHIT JAIN KNOWNAS ANSAL HOUSING AND CONSTRUCTION LTD).....AppellantThrough:Mr. Vaibhav Kulkarni, Mr. HimanshuAggarwal, Mr. Akash Shukla, Ms.Kanika Sethi, Advs. versus ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX.....RespondentThrough:Mr. Sanjay Kumar, SSC with Ms.Monica Benjamin, JSC, Ms. Easha,JSC. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAOHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR O R D E R%10.09.2025 1.These appeals are filed by the same appellant/assessee. Accordingto the learned counsel for the appellant, these appeals are covered against theappellant/assessee in terms of order dated 14.11.2024 in ITA 553/2024 whichpertains to Assessment Year (‘AY’) 2007-08, wherein this Court has in Paragraph 1-6 stated as under: “1.The appellant (hereafter the assessee) has filed the present appealimpugning an order dated 26.07.2024 passed by the learned Income TaxAppellate Tribunal (hereafter the ITAT) in ITA No. 2731/Del/2010 in respect of the assessment year (AY) 2007-08 rendered in the appeal preferred by theRevenue against the order dated 30.03.2010 passed by the learnedCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-1 [hereafter the CIT(A)]. 2.The Revenue had challenged the decision of the learned CIT(A) indeleting an addition of ₹58,09,780/- made on account of gross notional Annual Letting Value (ALV) in respect of unsold spaces / flats and treatingthe same as income from house property. 3.The assessee is engaged in the development of real estate andcontended that the said vacant flats/spaces held by it were stock-in-trade andtherefore, Section 22 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act) was notapplicable. According to the assessee, its income is required to be assessedunder the head ‘profits and gains of business or profession’ and not underthe head of ‘income from house property’. The said contention was acceptedby the learned CIT(A). The relevant extract of the order dated30.03.2010 is set out below:- “10.After going through the grounds of appeal as well as theorder of the appellate Authorities, I am of the view that as thebusiness of the appellant company was construction and sale ofimmovable property, the income arising from the unsold spaces /flats could only be taxed under the head business income and itwas not open to the Assessing Officer to tax the notional valueunder the head income from house property in respect of flats /spaces lying in the closing stock of the company. It is noticed thatthe A.O. has based the additions on the ground that departmenthas not accepted the appellate decisions of the higher authoritiesand that the matter is pending before the Hon'ble High Court ofDelhi. Following the decisions of the ITAT and my predecessorCIT (A)- l in the case of appellant for the earlier assessment yearsthe addition of Rs. 82,99,685/- made by the Assessing Officer isdeleted.” 4.However, the learned ITAT did not concur with the said view.Notwithstanding, that the assessee held immovable property as a part of thestock-in-trade, the ALV was chargeable to tax under the head of ‘incomefrom house property’. 5.Concededly, this issue stands concluded in favour of the Revenue bythis Court in the assessee’s own case in an earlier assessment year – AnsalHousing & Construction Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of IncomeTax: [2018] 89 taxmann.com 238 (Delhi). 6.In view of the above, no substantial question of law arises in the present appeal. The same is, accordingly, dismissed.” 4.However, the learned ITAT did not concur with the said view.Notwithstanding, that the assessee held immovable property as a part of thestock-in-trade, the ALV was chargeable to tax under the head of ‘incomefrom house property’. 5.Concededly, this issue stands concluded in favour of the Revenue bythis Court in the assessee’s own case in an earlier assessment year – AnsalHousing & Construction Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of IncomeTax: [2018] 89 taxmann.com 238 (Delhi). 6.In view of the above, no substantial question of law arises in the present appeal. The same is, accordingly, dismissed.” 2.The counsel also states the judgment in the case of Ansal Housing &Construction Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax: [2018] 89taxmann.com 238 (Delhi) of which a reference has been made in the orderdated 14.11.2024, pertains to all the AYs prior to 2007-2008.3.In view of the above, as no substantial question of law arises in all theseappeals, the same are accordingly dismissed. V. KAMESWAR RAO, J SEPTEMBER 10, 2025tg VINOD KUMAR, J