9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1494X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e on 05/12/2012, declaring total income of Rs. 2,82,520/-. The Assessing Officer passed an order u/s 144 of the Act on 28/03/2015, determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 9,17,960/-. The Assessing Officer had treated the rental income of Rs. 9,70,200/-, earned by the assessee as income assessable under the head "income from house property". The assessee had computed the income in question under the head "income from other sources". Consequent to changing the head of "income from other sources" to "income from house property, the expenditure claimed by the assessee on account of electricity charges, repairs and maintenance etc. was disallowed. The rent in question was earned by the assessee from renting out its factory premises ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der the head "business income". 4.1. Further in the case of Commissioner of Excess Profit Tax vs. Sree Lakshmi Silk Mills Ltd. in 20 ITR 451, it was held as follows:- "If a commercial asset is not capable of being used as such, then its being let out to others does not result in an income which is the income of the business. But an asset which was acquired and used for the purpose of the business does not cease to be a commercial asset of that business as soon as it was temporarily put out of use or let out to another person for use in his business or trade. The yield of income by a commercial asset is the profit of the business irrespective of the manner in which that asset is exploited by the owner of the business. He is entitled to ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t being so, the disputed income cannot be said to fall under any section of the Indian IT Act other than s. 10. Therefore, it is clear that it was part of the normal activities of the assessee's business to earn money by making use of its machinery by either employing it as its own manufacturing concern or temporarily letting it to others for making profit for that business when for the time being it could not itself run it. The High Court was in error in holding that the dyeing plant had ceased to be a commercial asset of the assessee and the income earned by it by letting it out was not chargeable to excess profits tax" 4.2. Applying the propositions of law laid down in the above case-law to the facts of the case on hand, the income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
