9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 841X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on facts and in law in upholding the action of the learned Assessing Officer in assessing lease rental income under the Head of Income 'Profits & gains of Business or profession' u/s 28 instead of assessing lease rental income under the Head 'Income from House Property' u/s 22 of the Act as declared by the appellant company in its return of income and which basis has been consistently followed since inception i.e. Assessment Year 2010-11 and assessed u/s 143(3) of the Act and thereby making addition of Rs. 10,79,56,954 to the declared Total Income. Thus ignoring the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Radha Swami Satsang 193 ITR 321(SC). 1.1 The learned CIT(A) has erred in law in not following the decision of Hon'ble Sup ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e authorities below in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case. GROUND NO.1 7. Undisputedly, assessee has earned the total revenue from the operation of its company at Rs. 57,49,98,489/- from the rental income. It is also not in dispute that the assessee company was primarily engaged in the business of real estate. It is also not in dispute that the assessee has been leasing the property in question and collecting rent since 2010-11 which has been assessed under the head 'income from house property'. It is also not in dispute that the assessee is owner of the property in question and has leased out the property on the basis of rental agreement. It is also not in dispute that in the subsequent year, the rental income of the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld. CIT (A) have relied upon the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rayala Corporation (P) Ltd. - 243 ITR 360 (SC). In the decision of Rayala Corporation (P) Ltd. (supra), reliance has been placed on the decision of Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. - 373 ITR 673 (SC) wherein in the Memorandum of Association "business of letting" was included in its object clause. 12. However, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Dadarkar & Associates (supra) discussed the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. and Rayala Corporation (P) Ltd. (supra) wherein it is held as under :- "merely because there is an entry in the object clause of the business showing a particular object, would n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... house property'. 15. Identical issue has also been decided by the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in case cited as Select Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT & Ors. in ITA Nos.3751/Del/2013 & Ors. order dated 04.10.2017 in favour of the assessee by relying upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case cited as Raj Dadarkar & Associates (supra). 16. The contention of the ld. DR for the Revenue that when the assessee has claimed depreciation on the property its rental income is to be charged to Income-tax under the head income from 'business & profession' is not tenable in the face of the fact that computation of income, available at page 44 of the paper book, shows that the assessee has never claimed depreciation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
