Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
$~42 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 509/2022
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-04..... Appellant Through: Mr Abhishek Maratha, Sr Standing Counsel.
Versus
M/S MICROSOFT INDIA (R ANDD) PVT LTD ..... Respondent
Through: Mr Nageshwar Rao, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
O R D E R %
06.12.2022 [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)] CM APPL.52444/2022 1. Allowed, subject to the appellant filing legible copies of the annexures, at least three days before the next date of hearing. ITA 507/2022&CM APPL.52423/2022[Application filed on behalf of the appellant seeking condonation of delay in refiling the appeal]
The short issue which arises for consideration in the above-captioned appeal is: whether the rent received by the respondent/assessee should be treated as composite rent for letting out building, furniture and fixtures, as also equipment?
ITA 507/2022
1/3 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 14:14:52
2.1 The record seems to reveal, that the respondent/assessee, in the revised return, had claimed the rent received from the subject building as “income from other sources”. 3. Unfortunately, the appellant/revenue has not placed on record, the entire record, in particular, the lease agreement. 4. Mr Abhishek Maratha, who appears on behalf of the appellant/revenue, is directed to place the entire record before the Court, which will include the lease agreement; albeit, in electronic form. 5. We may note, that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short “Tribunal”] has ruled in favour of the respondent/assessee, and has reached a conclusion that rent received by the respondent/assessee was composite rent, and hence would fall under Section 56 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 i.e., income received from other sources. 6. Furthermore, counsel for the respondent/assessee, in support of his submission, has inter alia, relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sultan Brothers (P) Ltd vs Commissioner of Income-Tax (1964) 5 SCR 807. 6.1 In addition thereto, the respondent/assessee has also relied upon the judgments of this Court in Garg Dyeing & Processing Industries vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (2013) 212 Taxman 160 (Delhi) and Jay Metal Industries (P.) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax-V, (2017) 249 Taxman 450 (Delhi). 7. List the matter on 20.01.2023.
ITA 507/2022
2/3 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 14:14:52
Counsel for the parties will file their written submissions, not exceeding three pages each, at least three days before the next date of hearing.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
TARA VITASTA GANJU, J
DECEMBER 6, 2022/pmc
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
ITA 507/2022
3/3
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 14:14:52