9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 753X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der dated 21.11.2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Bench at Indore in Income Tax Appeal bearing numbers ITA/344/Indore/2017 for Assessment Year 2013-14, ITA/118/Indore/2017 for Assessment Year 2012-13, ITA/117/Indore/2017 for Assessment Year 2011-12 and ITA/203/Indore/2018 for the Assessment Year 2014-15 respectively. Income Tax Appeal No.180 of 2023 2. The Assessee - Company, M/s. M.P. Entertainment & Developers Private Limited filed e-return of Income Tax for the Assessment Year 2013-14 on 29.09.2013 declaring total loss at minus Rs. 3,32,47,258/- (rupees three crore thirty two lakh forty seven thousand two hundred fifty eight only). The case of the assessee came under the scrutiny through Computer Assisted Securit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Security Selection (CASS) and assessment under Section 143 (3) of the Income Tax Act was completed by Assessing Officer (AO) on 29.03.2014 at Rs. 4,71,42,454/- (rupees four crore seventy one lakh forty two thousand four hundred fifty four only). Income Tax Appeal No.218 of 2023 6. The Assessee - Company, M/s. M.P. Entertainment & Developers Private Limited filed e-return of Income Tax for the Assessment Year 2014-15 on 19.11.2014 declaring net loss at minus Rs. 3,46,49,041/- (rupees three crore forty six lakh forty nine thousand forty one only). The case of the assessee came under the scrutiny through Computer Assisted Security Selection (CASS) and assessment under Section 143 (3) of the Income Tax Act was completed by Assessing Officer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the CIT (Appeals) allowed all the appeals of the assessee and deleted both the additions by holding that any income from leasing or letting out the properties in such Mall are essentially required to be computed only as an income from the business under Section 28 of the Income Tax Act and it cannot be treated as income from the house property. Accordingly, the CIT (A) deleted the income from the house property of Rs. 50,21,35,712/- (rupees fifty crore twenty one lakh thirty five thousand seven hundred twelve only) and also allowed the depreciation of Rs. 3,48,31,840/- (rupees three crore forty eight lakh thirty one thousand eight hundred forty only). 9. Being dissatisfied with the order passed by the CIT (A), the Income Tax Department pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and Investment Limited, Chennai v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-III, Tamil Nadu reported in (2015) 14 SCC 793 and Rayala Corporation Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (2016) 15 SCC 201 have been held inapplicable in the matter building constructed by Maharashtra Housing & Development Authority and shown the income from the shop and stall under Head of "profit and gain of business or profession". The re-assessment order was framed computed the income from the shops and stalls under the Head of "income from the house property" of the Income Tax Act and the same was upheld up to the Apex Court. 12. Finally, Ms. Veena Mandlik submitted that the learned ITAT has wrongly placed reliance on a judgment in c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsidering the documents filed by the respondent - assessee. The learned ITAT found that the main object of the assessee is the business of constructing, owning, acquiring, developing, managing, running, hiring, letting out, selling out or leasing multiplex, cineplex, cinema hall, theater, shop, shopping mall etc. as per Memorandum of Article and Association, which is liable to be categorized as income derived from the shopping mall under the head of "income from business" under Section 28 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee owned a building in the name of Mall and getting it furnished and thereafter let out to various persons with all furniture, fixtures, light or air conditioner for being used as table space by executing a rent agreement. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or substantial income was from letting out the properties which was the principal business activities of the appellant i.e. Raj Dadarkar and Associates. 18. In the present case, the A.O. did not find any material against the respondent - assessee to come to the conclusion that sub-leasing of the premises was only a part of its predominant object of the assessee. The respondent's right from the construction of mall till the matter was taken into scrutiny had been offering income from the business of constructing, owning, acquiring, developing, managing, running, hiring, letting out, selling out or leasing multiplex, cineplex, cinema hall, theater, shop, shopping mall etc., sub-licence by it under the head "profit and gain of business or pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
