9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (12) TMI 306 - SCH - Income TaxIncome derived from commercial properties Business income or income from house property - The assessee company is deriving rental income from letting out a commercial complex apart from income from other sources Held that - The Special Leave Petitions are dismissed. HC decision upheld 2014 (11) TMI 633 - MADRAS HIGH COURT High Court 2014 (11) TMI 633 - MADRAS HIGH COURT has held that - The assessee had given its premises for rent and did not engage in any business activity at all the AO computed the income under the head income from house property - in East India Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd Vs. CIT 1960 (11) TMI 7 - SUPREME Court the similar matter has been decided - If the income from a source falls within a specific head set out in S.6 the fact that it may indirectly be covered by another head will not make the income taxable under the latter head - The income derived by the company from shops and stalls is income received from property and falls under the specific head described in S.9 - even if the assessee s business was in real estate, the income on letting out of the property was to be assessed as income from house property - the rental income would not have been realised, but for the letting out of the machinery, plant or furniture along with such building and therefore, the rental received for the building had to be assessed under the head Income from other sources - where the owner of the property exploited the property by leasing out the same and realised income by way of rent, the same was to be assessed under the head Income from house property and not as business income the order of the Tribunal is upheld decided against assessee.
The Supreme Court of India dismissed the Special Leave Petitions. The citation is 2015 (12) TMI 306 - SC. The reference was made to the 2014 (11) TMI 633 judgment by the Madras High Court. Judges were Mr. A.K. Sikri and Mr. Rohinton Fali Nariman. Counsel for the petitioner were Mr. V. Ramasubramanian and Mr. A. Lakshminarayanan.
|
