9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1018X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee. - I.T.A. No. 1983/M/2011, C.O.No.217/M/2013 - - - Dated:- 30-10-2015 - SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Assessee : Shri Dharmesh Bafna Ms. Anusha Singh For The Revenue : Shri Akhilendra Yadav, DR ORDER PER SANJAY GARG, JM: The captioned appeal ITA No.1983/M/2011 is filed by the Revenue and Cross No.217/M/2013 is filed by the assessee for the assessment year 1998-1999. Since, the issues raised in both these appeals are inter-connected, therefore, for the sake of convenience, they are clubbed, heard together and disposed of in this consolidated order. Appeal wise adjudication is given in the following paragraphs of this order. ITA No.1983/M/2012 (By Revenue) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that of the AO restored. 3. Briefly stated relevant facts of the case are that the assessee, who is engaged in the business of hoteliering, catering etc., originally filed the return of income declaring the total income of ₹ 72,93,51,250/-. Subsequently, the said return of income was revised declaring the total income at ₹ 72,88,35,269/-, wherein assessee claimed deduction u/s 80HHD of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). AO completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act and the assessed income was determined at ₹ 1,05,85,36,899/-, which was subsequently enhanced to ₹ 1,06,27,47,646/- vide order passed u/s 154 of the Act. Meanwhile, notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued and served on the assessee to reopen the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before the Tribunal by raising the above mentioned grounds. 5. During the proceedings before us, Ld DR for the Revenue relied on the order of the AO and submitted that the decision taken by the AO is in tune with the judgment of the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ravi Ratna Exports Pvt Ltd (246 ITR 443) wherein it has been held that the interest income is not a business income and the same should be treated as income from other sources . 6. On the other hand, Ld Counsel for the assessee heavily relied on the order of the CIT (A) and reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities. Further, he brought our attention to the order of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. M/s. Piem Hotels Ltd (which is the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f ₹ 3,82,03,512/- from Piem (HK). The only dispute is regarding the head under which it is to be taxed. According to the assessee, the same is under the head business whereas according to the AO, the same is under income from other sources . According to the AO the same is not under business income since there is no management agreement between the 2 companies, no expenditure details were produced on operating the hotel, no staff of the assessee was assigned to the hotel, and there was no substantial systematic, organised or continuous activity with the object of making profits or gains there from with control and direction of such activity involving application of labour and skill. However, in our opinion, in the modern days of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e considered the assessment order and the submissions of the appellant. As I find, this has been a recurring issue in the appellant s assessments. As I see, in this context, vide discussion in para 22 of his order dt. 8.3.2010 for the AY 2001-2002, the CIT (A) had the occasion to hold the same income as business income following the earlier orders for the AYs 1998-99, 1999-2000 and 2000-01. Subsequently, the same decision was followed by CIT (A) in his order dated 17.5.2010 for the AY 2002- 2003. Facts remaining the same for this year also, I find no reason to deviate from the decision of the CIT (A). Further, as pointed by the appellant, I also find that the Hon ble ITAT, Mumbai in ITA No.5192 to 5195/Mum/2006 for AYs 1989-90; 1990-91; 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
