9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (2) TMI 122 - HC - Wealth-taxBenefit of Section 40(3)(vi) of the Wealth Tax Act - Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT has substantially erred in law in directing to delete the value of the assets used for the purpose of earning lease rent income treating the same as business income and thereby giving benefit of Section 40(3)(vi) of the Wealth Tax Act. - Held that - Tribunal while deciding the appeal rightly observed that after the unit was set up, the assessee had admittedly never carried out the manufacturing activities for manufacturing of shoe polish. Further, The Tribunal rightly held that the facts of the case clearly indicated that the assessee wanted to exploit the asset as a commercial asset for commercial gain. It is further to be noted that leasing out had been done in the accounting year 1988-1989 and for the preceding assessment years, the assessee had shown the lease rent as business income, and the same had been accepted by the A.O. The Tribunal further held that the principle of res judicata was admittedly not applicable to the Income Tax Proceedings. - CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal has given cogent and convincing reasons in arriving at the conclusion and we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal. In our view, the income of the assessee is a business income. Apart from that, learned advocate for the appellantrevenue is not in a position to show how the findings of the CIT (A) and Tribunal are bad in law and on facts. - Following decision of assessee s own previous case 2015 (1) TMI 438 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT - Decided against Revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the ITAT erred in law by directing to delete the value of the assets used for earning lease rent income, treating it as business income, and thereby giving the benefit of Section 40(3)(vi) of the Wealth Tax Act. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Treatment of Lease Rent Income as Business Income: The appellant-revenue challenged the ITAT's decision to treat the lease rent income as business income, which allowed the assessee to benefit from Section 40(3)(vi) of the Wealth Tax Act. The core question was whether the income derived from leasing assets should be classified as business income or income from other sources. Arguments by the Revenue: The revenue argued that the company's primary objective was manufacturing, purchasing, selling, and refining sodium and other chemicals. Therefore, leasing the factory, which was not a temporary arrangement, did not align with the company's main business activities. Consequently, the income from lease rent should be considered income from other sources, not eligible for deductions under Section 32AB. CIT(A) and Tribunal's View: Both the CIT(A) and the Tribunal found that the assessee intended to exploit the leased assets commercially. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had consistently shown lease rent as business income in previous assessments, which the Assessing Officer had accepted. They cited several precedents and a circular (Circular No.461 dated 9.7.86) to support their decision that lease rent derived from commercial assets should be treated as business income. Legal Precedents and Circulars: The judgment referenced multiple cases, including CIT Vs. Shri Lakshmi Silk Mills Ltd., CIT Vs. National Mills Co. Ltd., and CIT Vs. Prem Chand Jute Mills Ltd., which established that lease rent from commercial assets should be treated as business income. The Tribunal also referred to Circular No.461, which clarified that leasing companies could claim deductions under Section 32AB if the leased machinery was used for manufacturing or production. Court's Conclusion: The High Court agreed with the CIT(A) and Tribunal's findings, stating that the income from leasing the factory should be treated as business income. The court emphasized that the principle of res judicata did not apply to income tax proceedings, thus supporting the Tribunal's decision to treat lease rent as business income consistently. Final Judgment: The High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the Tribunal did not err in law. Both questions of law were answered in favor of the assessee and against the revenue, thereby allowing the deductions under Section 32AB and treating the lease rent as business income. Summary: The High Court upheld the ITAT's decision to treat the lease rent income as business income, allowing the assessee to benefit from Section 40(3)(vi) of the Wealth Tax Act. The court found no error in the Tribunal's interpretation of law and its reliance on precedents and circulars. The appeal by the revenue was dismissed, and the questions of law were resolved in favor of the assessee.
|
