9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 1421X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rty and any ancillary assets or infrastructure services provided to Licensees. 1.2 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) fails to appreciate the provisions of Section 14 and Section 22 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 1.3 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not applying the express provisions of Section 14 and section 22 for Income from House Property, which is against to the Principle of Law. 1.4 The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has made an error in presuming that we have let out ancillary and incidental assets along with immovable property and carried out business activity in systematic and scientific manner with exploitation of immovable property by quoting the following citations: i. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income declaring total income to the tune of Rs. 14,52,84,405/- on 14.10.2010. The return of income was processed u/s.143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( in short "the Act"). Thereafter, the case was selected for scrutiny. It came into notice that the assessee firm has shown the rental income to the tune of Rs. 8,34,46,573/- and claimed 30% deduction u/s.23 of the Act. The assessee has developed a shopping-cum-office complex in the name and style of M/s.Hallmark Business Plaza in Bandra (East), Mumbai. Apart from letting out office space he was deriving rent from it, the appellant also maintained the complex and also earned income from various activities linked to the complex like parking charges, amenities charges, mobile charges etc. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... maintenance of complex and also earning income from various activities linked to the complex like parking charges, amenities charges, mobile charges etc. In brief the assessee had let out the property and was rendering the services attributable to the complex. Since the Assessing Officer was of the view that the assessee was commercially exploiting his shops cum office complex, therefore the income of the assessee is liable to be treated as business income. Hence the Assessing Officer declined the contention of the assessee and treated the income from business income despite income from house property. Undoubtedly the learned CIT(A) has confirmed the same. The learned representative of the assessee has relied upon the law settled by the Hon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
