9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1397X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m letting out and operation of the property as “income from business” and allow the expenditure and other claims in accordance with the law. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 445/Hyd/2015 - - - Dated:- 16-12-2016 - Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, Judicial Member And Shri B. Ramakotaiah, Accountant Member For Assessee : Shri C.Subramanyam and Shri V. Siva Kumar For Revenue : Smt. U. Mini Chandran, DR ORDER Per Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, J. M. This is assessee s appeal for the A.Y 2010-11. This appeal is against the order of the CIT (A)-4, Hyderabad dated 30.01.2015 confirming the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 92CA r.w.s. 144C of the I.T. Act. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee from the IT park as income from business. 6. For the above grounds and such other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, the appellant prays that the appeal be allowed. The appellant craves leave to ad to, amend or modify the above grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of the appeal, if it is considered necessary . 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company engaged in the business of Operation Maintenance of Information Technology Park, filed its return of income for the A.Y 2010-11 on 28.09.2010 admitting income of Rs. Nil under the normal provisions of the I.T. Act and book profit of Rs. Nil under the provisions of section 115JB of the Act. During the assessment proceedings u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion and expenses debited to the P L A/c and the business loss carried forward from the earlier year. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT (A), who confirmed the order of the AO and the assessee is in second appeal before us. 4. The learned Counsel for the assessee, while reiterating the submissions made before the authorities below, have drawn our attention to the main objects of the assessee which is to carry on business in the field of Software Development, ITES Services, BPO services and developing infrastructure service to the entities engaged in this type of business. The learned Counsel for the assessee also submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Chennai Properties Investments L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isposing of the underground coal mining rights in certain coal fields and it had restricted its activities to acquiring coal mining leases over large areas, developing them as coal fields and then subleasing them to collieries and other companies. Thus, in the said case, the leasing out of the coal fields to the collieries and other companies was the business of the assessee. The income which was received from letting out of those mining leases was shown as business income. Department took the position that it is to be treated as income from the house property. It would be thus, clear that in similar circumstances, identical issue arose before the Court. This Court first discussed the scheme of the Income Tax Act and particularly six heads ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which were there before the Court, it came to the conclusion that income had to be treated as income from business and not as income from house property. We are of the opinion that the aforesaid judgment in Karanpura Development Co. Ltd.'s case (supra) squarely applies to the facts of the present case . 10. No doubt in Sultan Brothers (P.) Ltd.'s case (supra), Constitution Bench judgment of this Court has clarified that merely an entry in the object clause showing a particular object would not be the determinative factor to arrive at an conclusion whether the income is to be treated as income from business and such a question would depend upon the circumstances of each case, viz., whether a particular business is letting or no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me Court at Para 9 to 11 of its order has held as under: 9. Upon hearing the learned counsel and going through the judgments cited by the learned counsel, we are of the view that the law laid down by this Court in the case of Chennai Properties Investment Ltd. (supra) shows the correct position of law and looking at the facts of the case in question, the case on hand is squarely covered by the said judgment. 10. Submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the Revenue is to the effect that the rent should be the main source of income or the purpose for which the company is incorporated should be to earn income from rent, so as to make the rental income to be the income taxable under the head Profits and Gains of Busin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
