9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 988X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-14 dated 29.08.2019 and pertains to assessment year 2010-11. 2. Grounds of appeal read as under:- 1. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) { Ld. CIT(A) } has erred in confirming the action of the Learned Assessing Officer ( Ld. AO ) in disallowing interest on delay in payment of rent to Bombay Port Trust of ₹ 39,69,999/- u/s. 57(1)(iii) of the Act while assessing occupancy charges under the head income from other sources . On the basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the disallowance made ought to have been deleted. 3. In this case, the earlier round, ITAT has passed following order in this case:- The appeal of the assessee is directed against the order dated 20-08-2014 passed by Ld. CIT(A)-20, Mumbai and it relates to the assessment year 2010-11. The assessee is aggrieved by the decision of Ld. CIT(A) in upholding the assessment of interest receipts under the head Income from other sources as against the claim of the assessee to assess the same under the head Income from business. The assessee is also aggrieved by the decision of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming disallowance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Gopal Purohit (336 ITR 287) and also other decisions. 4. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the rejection of the application for securing NBFC status would not render the assessee business less and the income derived by the assessee would not lose business character. In this regard, he placed reliance on the decision rendered by the co-ordinate bench in the case of Preimus Investment and Finance Ltd (ITA No. 4879/Mum/2012 dated 13-05-2015), wherein the Tribunal has expressed the view that the denial of registration by RBI as NBFC does not decide the issue of carrying on business. Accordingly the Ld. A.R. pleaded that the order passed by the tax authorities should be reversed. 5. On the contrary, the Ld. D.R. placed strong reliance on the order passed by Ld. CIT(A). 6. Having heard rival submissions, we are of the view that there is merit in the contentions of the assessee. We notice that the assessee has been earning income of identical nature in the past and the assessing officer has assessed the same under the head Income from business. Even though the principle of res judicata is not applicable to the income tax proceedings, yet we notice that the tax authorities hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... situated at Plot RR No. 1972 at Sewree, Mumbai for a lease of 30 years in 1995. The said property was given to Marico Ltd on which assessee was earning rent. As stated above the property was taken on lease for 30 years, which got expired in 1985 vide its letter dated 23.4.1985, the assessee requested for the renewal of lease term for further period of 30 years. However, BPT re/used to renew the lease and issued a notice to quit the premise. Further, BPT has also filed an eviction suit in 1986 with the Small Cause Court against the assessee in this matter. During the FY 2002-03, Marico Ltd had shown interest in getting the lease directly renewed in its name and accordingly paid an advance of ₹ 1.20 crore to BPT, Daring the year under consideration, BPT withdrew its eviction suit against the company vide Small Cause Court's order dated 23.11.2009 (copy enclosed at page No. 88 to 98). Thereafter, during the year, out of deposit of Rs. (sic)},25,W,000/- BPT adjusted ₹ 87,69,150/- towards lease rent and interest thereon of ₹ 39,69,999/- (including TDS of ₹ 3,60,909/-. We are enclosing herewith copy of adjustment letter received from BPT and ledger accoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cond ground of appeal is dismissed. 6. Against the above order assessee is in appeal before ITAT. 7. I have heard the Ld. DR and perused the record. Ld. Counsel of the assessee refers to paper book page No. 3 for the grounds of appeal before ITAT in the earlier record as under: The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ['CIT(A)] has erred in confirming the action of the learned Assessing Officer in treating interest income of J₹ 60,42,870/- as 'Income from Other Sources' as against 'Income from Business or Profession'. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the income ought to be assessed under the head 'Income from Business or Profession'. The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of following expenses while computing the taxable income of the assessee: Particulars Amount Employees Remuneration (After adjustment u/s 43B items] 7,32,250/- Repairs to Building 12,66,795/- Electricity charges 54,003/- Auditors Remuner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
