9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Assessment of excess municipal tax recovery as taxable income under 'Income from other sources.' Analysis: The appeal pertains to the assessment year 1981-82 where the assessee sublet certain premises to a bank and recovered excess municipal taxes paid in previous years. The Municipal Corporation imposed additional taxes due to the higher rent received by the subletting. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) added the recovered amount to the assessee's income, contending it was reimbursement for expenses incurred in previous years. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the addition, stating that the recovered amount was part of the consideration for the sub-lease and thus taxable under 'Income from other sources.' The assessee challenged this decision. The counsel for the assessee argued that the rent received from the sub-lease was not taxable, citing a Bombay High Court decision. However, the Tribunal rejected this argument, distinguishing the cited case where the income was received by a non-owner of the property. In the present case, the assessee was the lessee with the right to sub-lease, making the sub-lease income taxable under 'Income from other sources.' The Tribunal held that the income from sub-lease is distinct and taxable separately, contrary to the case law cited by the assessee. The Tribunal also addressed the assessee's contention that there was no specific provision for taxing such income under the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal pointed out that Section 59(1) applied provisions of Section 41(1) for computing income under Section 56, making the recovered amount taxable due to previous deductions allowed. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the ITO's decision to include the recovered amount in the assessee's total income. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the taxability of the excess municipal tax recovery as income from other sources.
|
