2014 (2) TMI 946 - AT - Income Tax

Eligibility for deduction u/s. 80IA - Transfer of ongoing business - Treatment of income derived Held that - M/s. Meenakshi Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., was duly approved by the Ministry of Commerce, Govt. of India as an industrial park in terms of Industrial Park Scheme, 2002 notified by the Department of Industrial Policy & Promotion, Ministry of Commerce and that assessee is entitled for deduction u/s. 80IA(4)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - M/s. Meenakshi Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., has transferred the operation and maintenance of industrial park the transfer was duly noted by the Department of Industrial Policy & Promotion and intimated to both transferor and transferee vide Ministry s letters dated 9th August, 2006 and 3rd August, 2007 thus, the assessee is entitled for deduction u/s. 80IA(4)(iii) of the Act for the unexpired period during which the transferor enterprise would have been entitled for deduction if the transfer had not taken place but, M/s. Meenakshi Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., cannot claim deduction u/s. 80IA(4) on the same income - There cannot be overlapping claim by each other. The AO straightaway disallowed the claim of deduction u/s. 80IA(4) and not gone into the quantification of deduction, such as whether computation is proper or not thus, the matter remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication of computation aspect of deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Act Decided partly in favour of Revenue.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the CIT(A) was correct in accepting the assessee-firm's contention that its main object was to derive business income rather than property income.
2. Whether the income derived from the operation and maintenance of the software park should be treated as 'income from house property' or 'income from business'.
3. Whether the assessee-firm is entitled to claim depreciation and carry forward losses against incomes eligible for deduction under section 80IA.
4. Whether the matter should be restored to the Assessing Officer for re-examination of the eligibility and fulfillment of conditions for claiming deductions under section 80IA.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Main Object of the Assessee-Firm:
The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in accepting the assessee-firm's claim that its primary objective was to derive business income. The Revenue argued that the property was acquired with the intention to derive property income, as evidenced by the receipts of "Rent, Maintenance Charges," and "Interests" on deposits from tenants, which are typically considered rental/house property income.

2. Treatment of Income:
The core issue was whether the income derived from the business operation and maintenance of the software park should be treated as 'income from house property' or 'income from business.' The AO treated the rental income from the e-park as 'income from house property' and disallowed the depreciation claimed by the assessee. The assessee argued that the property was approved for deduction under section 80IA, which is available only for business income, and that the same income had been treated as business income in previous years.

3. Entitlement to Depreciation and Carry Forward Losses:
The AO disallowed the depreciation claimed by the assessee and arrived at net losses from property income after setting off income from other sources. The CIT(A) observed that the assessee's income should be computed under 'income from business,' and the assessee should be entitled to carry forward losses and claim depreciation against income eligible for deduction under section 80IA. The Revenue argued that the AO should examine the eligibility and fulfillment of conditions for such deductions.

4. Restoration to Assessing Officer:
The CIT(A) accepted the assessee's claim without examining the computation aspect of the deduction under section 80IA. The Tribunal directed the AO to re-examine the computation of the deduction under section 80IA, ensuring that the assessee is given an opportunity to be heard.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the assessee is entitled to deduction under section 80IA(4)(iii) for the unexpired period during which the transferor enterprise would have been entitled to the deduction if the transfer had not taken place. However, the AO must re-examine the computation of the deduction. The appeals of the Revenue were partly allowed, and the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh consideration.

Order:
The Tribunal directed the AO to decide the issue afresh after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard. The appeals of the Revenue were partly allowed.