9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 540X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e-keeping. The assessee also undertook the responsibility of operation and maintenance of such services and also to provide skilled work force for processing the diamonds - It, therefore, cannot be stated that the assessee was not in the business through joint venture of processing of the diamonds. Merely because such agreement envisaged assured return to the assessee, in lieu of either profit or loss to be shared from the joint venture, would not take away the fact that the assessee was engaged in the business - The assessee had not rented out property but had allowed its use thereof for the purpose of joint venture business - Following decision of Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax Versus Saptarshi Services Ltd. [2003 (2) TMI 415 - GUJA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ile the condition of agreement with the tenant abundantly indicate it to be actually a case of letting out of furnished premises for a fixed period and for defined amount ? The main issue that the Revenue argued before us was with respect to addition of Rs. 1.55 Crores [rounded off] made by the Assessing Officer as income from house property. For the Assessment Year 2006-07, the assessee had filed its return of income on 29th December 2006 which was taken in scrutiny. The Assessing Officer framed assessment on 7th October 2008 determining total income at Rs. 1.69 Crores [rounded off] . Out of such amount, a sum of Rs. 1.55 Crores represented what the Assessing Officer treated as the assessee's income from house property. The Assessing O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n that share of JBA received by the appellant was 'Income from House property' and not 'Income from Business'. (i) The amount received under JBA was towards not only use of infrastructure but a maintenance and for providing host of utilities and services. (ii) The appellant was carrying on the activity in an organized manner and on daily basis by employing a team of personnel. (iii) The appellant was running number of operational departments on daily basis like any business house such as Canteen, support, security, etc. (iv) The appellant made acquisition of 2 companies through Amalgamation and Merger for development of the infrastructure. (v) It had developed the infrastructure keeping in mind the requirements of Diamond Trading ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... other hand, the main intention is found to be the exploitation of immovable property by way of commercial activities then the resultant income must be held as business income. The Assessing Officer relied upon the case of Shambhu Investment Private Limited (Supra) wherein Hon'ble Court after laid down law that what was to be seen was the intention of the assessee. If the intention was to exploit property commercially, the resultant income must be assessed as business income. Thus, even applying ratio of Shambu Investment (Supra) the income of the appellant is to be assessed as Business Income since the intention of the appellant is to exploit property commercially. The facts of the appellant are quite different from that of the case of S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2003] 263 ITR 143. We, however, find that the CIT (A) as well as the Tribunal have correctly appreciated the facts on record. The assessee did not supply solely the house property with or without furnishings. It supplied various requirements of the joint venture business; such as, infrastructure, machinery, security systems, canteen and house-keeping. The assessee also undertook the responsibility of operation and maintenance of such services and also to provide skilled work force for processing the diamonds. In turn, the agreement assured a minimum return of Rs. 6,00,000/= to the assessee, or return at the rate of rupee one per inward carat; whichever was higher. It, therefore, cannot be stated that the assessee wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rges under the head, "income from business and profession". Assessee explained to the Assessing Officer that in addition to providing the premises, the assessee also provided several other facilitates; such as, services of lift, services of receptionists, secretarial services, data processing, conference room, etc. The Assessing Officer did not accept the contention and treated the income, derived from the house property. The Tribunal ultimately held in favour of the assessee and came to conclusion that, ", ..the director of M/s. Saptarashi Services (P) Limited are not related to the directors of M/s. Kohinoor Tabacco Products (P) Limited. The electricity charges from October 1, 1989 to March 31, 1990, were paid to M/s. Mohanlal Hargovand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
