9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 199X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the sake of convenience, by dealing with ITA No. 4550/Del/2014 (AY 2005-06). 2. Since the grounds in all the four appeals are common, hence, we are reproducing the following grounds of appeal of ITA No. 4550/Del/2014 only, for the sake of brevity. 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in treating the rental income of the assessee as Business Income instead of Income from House Property by not appreciating the fact that the assessee is accounting the unsold flats as its stock in trade. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the fact that the assessee is in the business of developing building and construction of flats since the time of its inception. Therefore, any profit arises out of the sale of building and flats or renting out is to be assessed as business income. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in relying on the High Court decision in assessee s own case in earlier year ignoring the fact that the department has not accepted the decision of the Hon ble High Court on merits. However, in the light of the CBDT s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 18.3.2013. 4. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid assessment order, assessee appealed before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order dated 23.5.2014 has allowed the deduction and accordingly allowed the appeal of the Assessee. 5. Now the Revenue is aggrieved against the impugned order and filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. 6. At the time of hearing Ld. DR relied upon the order of the AO and reiterated the contentions raised by the Revenue in the grounds and requested that addition made by the AO may be upheld. 7. On the contrary, Ld. A.R. of the assessee relied upon the order of the ld. CIT(A). He draw our attention towards the Hon ble High Court judgment dated 17.5.2013 passed in ITA No. 238-240/Del/2013 in the case of assessee titled as New Delhi Hotels Ltd. vs. ACIT wherein the Hon ble High Court has allowed the deduction to the assessee which was later followed by the Ld. CIT(A) in his impugned order. Accordingly, he requested that by following the Hon ble High Court of Delhi judgment dated 17.5.2013, as aforesaid, and by upholding the Ld. CIT(A) s order, Appeal of the Revenue may be dismissed. 7. We have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncome of the assessee. 4.2 It is seen that identical addition was made by the AO in A Y 2004-05, 2008-09 and 2009-10. In the above assessments, AO disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 24 and rent from property held as stock-in-trade was treated as business income as against appellant's claim of the same as Income from House Property. Ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee and upheld the claim of the assessee that the rental income is to be treated as Income from House Property. On further appeal by the department Hon'ble ITAT upheld the view of the AO. On appeal by the assessee against the decision of ITAT, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in ITA 238/2013, 23912013 and 240/2013 in decision dt. 17.05.2013 for the AY 2004-05, 2008-09 and 2009-10 upheld the view of the ld. CIT(A) that rental income should be assessed under the head Income from House Property as under :- 4. The Tribunal held that it would fall under the head of profits and gains from business and profession , whereas it is the appellant/assessee's contention that it would fall within the head income from house property . It appears that this issue is no longer debatable in view of the dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s directed to allow deductions claimed by the appellant u/s. 24. The appeal is allowed in the ground. 7.1 After going through the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) as aforesaid, we have seen that identical addition was made by the AO in AY 2004-05, 2008-09 and 2009-10. In the above assessments, AO disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 24 and rent from property held as stock-in-trade was treated as business income as against assessee s claim of the same as Income from House Property. Ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee and upheld the claim of the assessee that the rental income is to be treated as Income from House Property. On further appeal by the department ITAT upheld the view of the AO. On appeal by the assessee against the decision of ITAT, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in ITA 238/2013, 239/2013 and 240/2013 in decision dt. 17.05.2013 for the AY 2004-05, 2008-09 and 2009-10 upheld the view of the ld. CIT(A) that rental income should be assessed under the head Income from House Property as under: 4. The Tribunal held that it would fall under the head of profits and gains from business and profession , whereas it is the appellant/assessee's contention that it w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
