MV MERCURY BUILDWELL PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO-10(2)(4), MUMBAI

The appellant in this case has treated ‘income received from placing hoardings’ as ‘income from house property’, whereas the Ld. AO held that this income is to be taxed under the head ‘income from other sources’. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the view of Ld. AO. The second addition made by the Ld. AO relates to ‘income from letting out furniture and fixtures’. The appellant treated this income as ‘income from house property’. The Ld. CIT(A) concurred with the view of Ld. AO but directed the Ld. AO to give ‘depreciation’ on the value of asset. Aggrieved by the changes made by Ld. AO/Ld. CIT(A), the appellant filed this appeal before ITAT.

During the appeal proceedings before ITAT, the Ld. AR argued that his case of treating ‘income received from letting space to hoarding’ under the head ‘Income from House Property’ and the issue was covered by several decisions including Delhi High Court decision of Niagara Hotels & Builders P. Ltd. (233 Taxman180 (Del).

As far as the second issue of treating income received from letting out furniture and fixtures as ‘income from other sources’, by the AO, the grievance of appellant is that it is not given depreciation. The Ld. CIT(A) in its order has already allowed this ground of appeal at page No 14 of the order. Since, it was treated as ‘Income from Other Sources’, the AO was directed to grant the ‘depreciation’ to the appellant. The appellant wanted that the income should be treated as ‘Income from House Property’ or if it is treated as ‘income from other sources’, then depreciation should be given. The Ld. CIT(A) held that, the income received from letting out furniture and fixtures as ‘Income from Other Sources’ and held ‘depreciation’ is to be given to the appellant, which was denied by Ld. AO. So, there is no grievance caused to the appellant on this issue.