9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 385X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re is no effect on computation of income - Unless the income is taken under the head “Income from House Property ” working of income does not vary whether income is considered under the head “Business” or “Other Sources” - CIT(A) did not admit any of the additional evidence as contended by the revenue – Decided against Revenue. - ITA No.795, 796, 797, 798, 799, 800/Hyd/2012 - - - Dated:- 29-4-2014 - Shri B. Ramakotaiah And Shri Saktijit Dey,JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. Solgy Jose T. Kottaram For the Respondent : None ORDER Per B. Ramakotaiah, AM: All these six appeals are on same issue and Revenue grounds are also similar in all the impugned assessment years. However, in A.Y. 2005-06 there was an additional gro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 05.09.2003 and as per the said deed the lease was for a period of 21 months from 01.04.2003 to 31.12.2004, with the lease rent of Rs.4,00,000/- per month up to 31.03.2004 and Rs.5,60,000/- per month from 01.04.2004 to 31.12.2004. Later the lease seems to have renewed. While explaining the reasons for leasing the sponge iron unit, it was explained that company has become sick and net worth eroded and bank accounts turned into Non-Performing Assets (in short NPA ). Therefore, the unit was given on lease along with plant and machinery, lab, raw material handling section and boilers which are depreciable assets, initially, for a temporary period, after which, assets were shown to have got back to the assessee company. Since the assets are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ermits and license to its name and never parted with them. Under the circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the ratio of the decision of Hon ble High Court in the case of GV Rattiah Co as well as the propositions as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Sultan Brothers P. Ltd. vs. CIT and Universal Plast Ltd. vs.CIT (supra) are applicable in this case and the income received as lease rent may be assessed as business income. On these lines, the lease rent received by the appellant is held to be the income derived on exploitation of business assets but not as property. Accordingly, the addition of Rs.48,00,000/- made by the A.O. treating the entire lease rent as business income, without allowing the expenses related to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sources there is no effect on computation of income in this case. Unless the income is taken under the head Income from House Property working of income does not vary whether income is considered under the head Business or Other Sources . In view of this, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in the Revenue appeals in all the six assessment years on the above issue. We also find that Ld. CIT(A) did not admit any of the additional evidence as contended in ground No.2. Accordingly, grounds on this issue in all the assessment years are rejected. 5. One more issue for A.Y. 2005-06 raised by the Revenue is as under : 5. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have sustained the disallowance made on account of share application money. 6. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
