Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2021 (12) TMI 560

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... perating and providing equipments essential for operation of mall, i.e., infrastructure support services under the head profit and gain from business or profession . It is also not in dispute that for the assessment year 2011-12 and 2012-13, by order dated 16.12.2015 and 18.02.2015, the Assessing Officer accepted the same; whereas for the assessment year 2015-16, ld. CIT(A) in first appeal granted relief to the assessee by holding that the income from infrastructure support services is taxable under the head profits and gains from business or profession and not under the head income from house property . As decided in CHANDER NAGAR CHEMICALS AND MINERAL PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS ITO, WARD-3 (3) , NEW DELHI. [ 2020 (9) TMI 342 - ITAT DE .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n the case of Ruchi Malls Pvt. Ltd ( the assessee ), Revenue preferred this appeal. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of construction, leasing operating and maintaining a mixed used Mall by the name of Ahmedabad One in Gujrat, which they have leased out to various tenants and earning rental income as well as income from other sources in the shape of infrastructure support serviced by providing certain services to them. For the assessment year 2014-15, they have filed their return of income on 30.09.2014 declaring a loss of ₹ 5,57,64,309/-. By order dated 29.12.2016 u/s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act ), ld. Assessing Officer held the income offered from inf .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ervices to its tenants and the services, if any, are provided by third party to whom separate payments were made by the tenants. For these reasons, ld. DR submitted that the ld. CIT(A) erred in treating the revenue from infrastructure support services as profit and gains from business or profession and therefore, it need to be reversed. 4. Submissions of the ld. AR on this aspect are two-fold. In so far as the merit is concerned, he submits that the assessee is free to arrange their business to enter into different agreements for different purposes and as much as the assessee entered one agreement for letting out the demised premises and another for services for hiring of equipments, it is not open for the Assessing Officer to go beyond .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rth, the lease is meaningless. 5. We have gone through the record in the light of the submissions made on either side. In so far as the existence of two agreements is concerned, absolutely, there is no dispute. It is also not in dispute that for the assessment year 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2015-16 also, the assessee offered the receipts under the two streams, namely, rental income earned from leasing out the space within the mall to the tenants and offering the same under the head income from house property and the other is income from business activities of maintaining, operating and providing equipments essential for operation of mall, i.e., infrastructure support services under the head profit and gain from business or profession . It .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... st. Revenue cannot force the assessee to enter into any agreement in any particular form, but at the best, the Revenue can probe into the genuineness of the transaction or the correctness of the quantum of expenditure. Revenue cannot prevent the assessee from entering into separate agreements. At best Revenue can verify the quantum of expenditure claimed by the assessee in respect of the services provided or the expenditure related to the hired equipment. 13. When the assessee had chosen to bifurcate the transaction and to charge separately towards the rent of the demised premises and for the services provided and hire charges, in our considered opinion the Revenue cannot prevent the same on the ground that such process would result in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates