9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 403X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the building in question and a separate agreement was entered with the tenant for providing the maintenance. No reason to include the income of maintenance charges earned by M/s. IHDP Home Interiors Exports Parks Pvt. Ltd. who is a separate assessee, in the hands of the assessee-company. - Decided against revenue - Income Tax Appeal No.-100 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 1-4-2016 - Dilip Gupta And Surya Prakash Kesarwani, JJ. For the Appellant : Manu Ghildyal ORDER This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 9 October 2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal by which the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed. The revenue have filed the appeal against the order dated 23 April 2012 passed by the Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... record. It is not in dispute that both the assessee company and its subsidiary company, providing maintenance services to the tenant of the assessee's property, are two separate entities and income-tax assessees. The learned first appellate authority after considering the balance sheets of both the companies arrived at a finding that the assessee company purchased the land and constructed the bare building at plot No.7 Sector 127, Taj Express Way, Noida and charged rent for the land and bare construction of building under an agreement entered into between the assessee company and the tenants. It is also born out on record that maintenance charges, whatsoever, were paid by the tenant to another company namely, M/s. IHDP Home Interiors Ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reason to include the income of maintenance charges of ₹ 2,72,74,672/- earned by M/s. IHDP Home Interiors Exports Parks Pvt. Ltd. who is a separate assessee, in the hands of the assessee-company. We, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the order of ld. CIT(A). Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order of the Tribunal for the Assessment Year 2009-10 is wholly erroneous inasmuch as the Tribunal failed to examine the findings recorded by the Assessing Authority in the assessment order with regard to the addition of ₹ 2,72,74,672/- in right perspective for the reason that the aforesaid sum was diverted by IHDP Home Interiors Export Parks Pvt. Ltd. to the respondent-assessee company. We ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
