9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 360X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on" (ii) "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, The Ld.CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in completely ignoring the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shambhu Investment (P) Ltd vs CIT(2003) 184CTP (SC) 91: (2003) 263 ITR 143(SC) wherein it is held that income derived by an assessee by letting out furnished premises on monthly rent basis to various parties alongwith various services, is assessable as income from property and not business income" (iii) "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the interest expenditure of Rs. 1,73,96,877/- (Rs.1,56,33,173/- for A.Y. 2014-15) u/s 24 b of the Act by treating the income from House property as business income ignoring the fact that the expense was not incurred for acquiring, constructing or repairing the house property. 3. Since the facts are identical, we are referring to the facts and figures from A.Y. 2013-14. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 28.09.2013 declaring the total loss of Rs. 4,44,43,112/-. Return of income was revised on 30.03.2015 revising the claim of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... latter includes primarily helmet income, media barrier deal promotion cash income, atrium corporate deal, lost and fqundi leasing DG set income etc. and the latter have being directed to be treated as business income in the earlier years appellate orders. Since the facts and the circumstances remain the same in the present year under appeal viz. A.Y 2009-10 following the order of my predecessor CIT(A)'s in A.Y 2007-08 and 2008-09 the Assessing officer is directed to treat the income from commercial complex as income from business and interest income as income from other sources. Accordingly the grounds 1&3 are partly allowed. Since the facts are similar in the present appeal for A.Y 2010-11, following the appeal for A.Y 2010-11,follozving the appeal orders in earlier years in A.Y 2010-11, 77w A.0. is directed to treat the income from tiw commercial complex as income from business and interest income as income from other sources. Ground No 1 to 3, thus are partly allowed.' 6.13 Also based on the same facts and merits, in appellant's own case for A.Y. 2012- 13, I have allowed the appeal, Further, Department filed an appeal against order of the CIT(A) for A.Y. 2010-11 and Hon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ITA 1430/15 assessee by the Tribunal holding that giving space with services and facilities of varied and wide nature would definitely constitute a business and the relationship between the parties in such case is distinguished from that merely of a landlord and tenant relationship. We therefore find no infirmity in the impugned orders of the id. CIT(A) treating the operational income received by the assesse companies from running of malls in the form of rent and service charges as their business income and upholding the same on this issue, we discuss these appeals filed by the revenue." In view of the above, respectfully following the Tribunal order (supra) in assessee's own case, the grievance of the department is found to be without merit and is rejected as such." In the instant case, the facts are peri metria with A.Y's 2009-10 and 2010-11 had been decided by Hon'ble ITAT.-Respectfully following the judgment of Dle ITAT, income received by the appellant from the operation of shopping mall form of rent and service charges is held to be business income. Accordingly, No. 1, 2 and 4 are allowed. 6. Against the above order, the Revenue is in appeal before us. 7. We ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of consistency has to be considered. 11. Even in a case of Sultan Brothers (P.) Ltd. (referred to supra), the Apex Court has observed that a small entry in the object clause showing a particular object would not be a determinative factor to arrive at a conclusion, whether the income is to be treated as 'income from business' and as such a question would depend upon the circumstances of each case i.e. whether particular business is letting or not. 12. The said Judgment was considered by the Apex Court in the case of Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. (referred to supra) The Apex Court, after considering the Judgment in case of Sultan Brothers (supra) in the facts and circumstances of the said case, has held the 'rent income' to be a 'business income'. In the said case, the main object, as culled out in the Memorandum of Association of the said Assessee Company, was to acquire the properties in the City of Madras and to let out those properties. The Assessee has rented two properties and the rental income received thereby was shown as income received from business in the return filed by the Assessee. The Apex Court observed that there is no other inco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
