9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (10) TMI 342X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... computed under the hed "Profits and gains of business" and not under "Income from house property". Held that - (i) the income derived from procurement of wheat and paddy as agent of Food Corporation of India was not exempt u/s 10(290 of the Act. (ii) that it was the case of the assessee itself that providing storage facility to Food Corporation of India was its main business and not merely incidental business. Thus, the income derived from storage facility would not be covered by the head "Income from house property". There was nothing to show that assessee had challenged the treatment of the income as "Income from business" in the previous year as noted by the Tribunal. The income of the assessee directly fell under the head "Business" an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ption under section 10(29) was confined to income derived from letting of godown from warehousing or storage, etc. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. The plea of the assessee that income will fall under the head of "House property" instead of "business" was also rejected. The Tribunal has remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer on the question of apportionment of expenses. Learned counsel for the Revenue points out that question (i) is covered against the assessee by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Orissa State Warehousing Corporation v. CIT [1999] 237 ITR 589 which has been followed by this court in the case of the assessee in I. T. R. No. 120 of 1998 Haryana Warehousing Corporation v. CIT decided on Septemb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad 'Profits and gains of business' and not 'Income from house property'. Respectfully, following the same, this ground of the assessee is dismissed." 7. From the above, It is clear that it is the case of the assessee itself that providing storage facility to FCI, is its main business and not merely incidental business. If this is so, income derived from storage facility will not be covered by the head "Income from house property". There is nothing to show that the assessee challenged the treatment of the said income as "Income from business" in the previous year as noticed in the impugned order. 8. Learned counsel for the assessee relies on the judgment of the Madras High Court in CIT v. Indian Warehousing Industries Ltd. [2002] 258 ITR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s or property, is the nature of business of the assessee. Reference was made to earlier judgment of the hon'ble Supreme Court in Karanpura Development Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1962] 44 ITR 362, taking the view that where letting out of premises and collection of rent was a part of business, the income will be business income. Following this view, it was held that income of the assessee in the said case was business income. In view of above, we respectfully disagree with the view of the Madras High Court in Indian Warehousing Properties, supra. 11. The matter being covered against the assessee by the judgments of the hon'ble Supreme Court discussed above, the question raised cannot be held to be substantial question of law. 12. Accordingly, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
