9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 949X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aghavan, Advocate ORDER S.S. Godara, Judicial Member This Revenue's appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -VI, Chennai dated 19.09.2011 in ITA No. 77/11-12, for assessment year 2008-09; in proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961 [in short the "Act"]. 2. In the instant case, the sole substantive grievance as agitated b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... indings. The concise facts of the case are that the assessee is a 'company', engaged in the business of biotech park including research and development in life sciences. In the assessment order dated 31.12.2010 it is evident that in the 'return', it had shown receipts of ₹ 4,28,98,273/-, ₹ 1,56,48,308/-, ₹ 2,55,90,441/-, ₹ 33,08,490/-, ₹ 13,91,286/- an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9; sources totalling to ₹ 3,20,16,170/-. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal. In the order under challenge, the CIT(A) holds that assessee's activities of raising rental and other incomes in question are in the nature of real, substantial, systematic and organized and that its core business is to let out allocable built-up space with all infrastructure facilities to develop oper ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... )(iii) or not. Proceeding to decide this question, we find from the case law cited by the assessee in CIT vs. Elnet Technologies Ltd (supra) that the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court has settled the very issue in favour of the concerned assessee and against the Revenue in its arguments. No distinguishing features have either been pointed out by the Revenue nor they emanate from the facts of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
