9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 1351X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member Appellant by: Shri J. Chandrasekaran, C.A. Respondent by: Shri V. Nandakumar, JCIT ORDER Duvvuru RL Reddy, Both the appeals filed by the same assessee are directed against different orders of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 13, Chennai, both dated 29.12.2016 relevant to the assessment years 2007-08 and 2012-13. In both the appeals, the only effective ground raised by the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the franchise fees claimed under section 24 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ Act in short]. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed its return of income on 30.10.2007 for the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. The Assessing Officer has noticed from the statement of income tax that assessee has received sum of ₹.1,97,94,431/- as franchise fee and same was treated as Income from house property and claimed deduction under section 24 @ 30% to the tune of ₹.59,38,329/ -. The assessee has submitted franchise agreements made with various parties before the Assessing Officer. After considering the submissions of the assessee and by following the decision of Hon'ble High Court in the assessee's own case, the Assessing Officer disallowed ₹.59,38,329/- and brought to tax. On appeal, by following the decision of the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rporation, operate a public utility, etc. 15. In the decision reported in (2008) 300 ITR 118 (Mad) (Keyaram Hotels (P) Ltd. V. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax) while dealing with the income earned by the assessee therein by letting out the property, this Court held as follows: Before the authorities under the Act as well as the Tribunal, the assessee has not placed any materials to support its case that the property from which income has been derived was used as business property and the exploitation of the property was in the nature of the business of the assessee company. 16. In this case, we find that the assessee has given a special right or privilege to the franchisees to undertake a particular business in the prope ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
