9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1154X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... win conditions viz. erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, in our opinion, have remained unfulfilled and therefore, invocation of proceeding u/s 263 was not justified. - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. No.3153/Mum/2014 - - - Dated:- 17-5-2018 - SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JM AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM For The Assessee : Gajendra Golchha,Ld. AR For The Revenue : Manjunatha Swamy, Ld. DR ORDER Per Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. The captioned appeal by assessee for Assessment Year [AY] 2009-10 contest the invocation of revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax-8 Mumbai [CIT] on 24/03/2014 by raising the following grounds of appeal:- 1. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted in Labella as Income from House Property. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax has failed to appreciate that the 3 Office premises concerned are business assets on which depreciation was consistently claimed by assessee and allowed by the department. The reasons assigned by him for doing the same wrong and insufficient. Provisions of the act ought to have been properly construed before doing the same. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, the said direction given by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax needs to be quashed. 4. Order passed is bad in law and contrary to the provisions of the Act. 2. Briefly stated the assessee being resident corporate assessee , engaged as real estate builders d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y way of the appeal, challenged invocation of revisional jurisdiction u/s 263. 4. The Ld. Authorized Representative for Assessee [AR], while drawing our attention to the documents placed in the paper book , submitted that Ld. AO has taken a possible view in the matter with due application of mind and therefore, Ld. CIT erred in assuming jurisdiction u/s 263. Our attention has been drawn to the fact that specific queries were raised during quantum assessment in this regard and complete details of the rental income was furnished by the assessee with justification of head of income and Ld. AO, after fully appreciating the same, framed the assessment. Per Contra , Ld. DR submitted that failure to consider certain vital facts by Ld. AO ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the above, the offices at La-Bella were purchased by the assessee with a view to expand its business. However, the assessee was not able to use the said resources. As such they have temporarily let out the premises. Till date, the assessee has treated the above premises [As above from (A) to (D)] as business asset. As such any income arising on account of business asset should be taxable as business income. In so far as, rent from property at Chakala [As above (E)] is concerned, it is brought to your good self kind notice that the assessee has sub-letted the property. As such, the income from sub-letted property is taxed as Business Income and not as Property Income , since the assessee is not the owner of the property. In view o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
