9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (10) TMI 342X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncome of Rs. 11,80,53,083 and Rs. 25,13,561 derived by the appellant from procurement of wheat and paddy as agent of Food Corporation of India/Government is exempt under section 10(29) of the Act along with rental income from warehouses, the business of the appellant being one integrated ? (ii) Whether if the answer to question No. 1 is in the negative, the common expenses incurred by the appellant can be apportioned notionally towards taxable and non-taxable income? (iii) Whether the income from rent of warehouses received by the appellant, is to be computed under the head 'Income from house property' even though it is derived in the course of its business?" 2. The assessee is a warehousing corporation and claimed exemption under sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erefore, cannot be split up under various heads and further erred in holding that the assessee is storing its own goods and thus cannot let out the premises to itself in respect of providing of storage facilities to FCI. The same submissions were reiterated by the representative of the authority. On a perusal of record and after hearing the rival submissions, it is seen that this issue has already been adjudicated upon in I. T. A. No. 1263/CHD/2004(assessment year 2000-01) vide paras 4 and 5 (page 2 of the order) wherein the assessee conceded that this issue is covered against the assessee, vide order dated September 1, 2004 (I. T. A. Nos. 681 to 683/CHD/2002) for the assessment years 1997-98 to 1999-2000. The Tribunal hel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iness of the assessee was to promote and develop markets and in that context, income of the assessee from rent was held to be rental income and not income from business. The said judgment could not have any application to the case of an assessee whose main business is of letting out warehouses for storage, etc., as in the present case. 9. The hon'ble Supreme Court applied the test whether income was directly covered by one head. It was held that if income was covered directly under one head, the head of income will be such head. Applying the said test, we are of the view that income of the assessee in the present case falls directly under the head of business and not under the head of income from house property. 10. In S. G. Mercantile Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
