PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S.KHIVRAJ TECH PARK LTD.,
What did the High Court hold?
The Revenue's counsel informed the Court that the approval notification from the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) in respect of deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Act had been received for the respondent. Consequently, the counsel was instructed to withdraw the appeals. The Court recorded this submission and placed the letter dated 05.1.2018 on record. The appeals were then dismissed as withdrawn, with the substantial questions of law left open. The connected Civil Miscellaneous Petitions (CMPs) were also dismissed. No costs were awarded. The judgment did not decide the merits of the substantial questions of law.
What were the facts?
The Revenue, represented by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4, Chennai, filed appeals before the Madras High Court against the common order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chennai 'B' Bench. The appeals pertained to assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11, and 2011-12, challenging the ITAT's decision to treat rental income from letting out property as 'business income' and allow deductions under Section 80IA(4)(iii) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee is M/s. Khivraj Tech Park Limited, Chennai. The appeals were filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
What were the issues?
The Tribunal had to decide five substantial questions of law raised by the Revenue: 1. Whether the ITAT was correct in upholding the CIT(A)'s order to treat rental income as 'business income' and allow deduction under Section 80IA(4)(iii). 2. Whether the ITAT was justified in holding rental receipts as 'income from business' when the assessee was not engaged in business activity and the conditions for assessment under 'income from house property' under Section 22 were satisfied. 3. Whether the ITAT was correct in disregarding that the assessee had not developed or maintained an industrial park by 31.3.2006 as per the Industrial Park Scheme-2002, thus not being eligible for deduction under Section 80IA(4)(iii). 4. Whether the ITAT was right in not following the Apex Court's decision in Keyaram Hotels Vs. CIT, which held that rental income from a commercial complex would be assessed as 'income from house property' if the assessee was not engaged in business activity, and if this non-appreciation made the order perverse. 5. Whether the ITAT was legally justified in holding that rental income qualified for deduction under Section 80IA without a clear finding that it was 'derived from' eligible business, and by ignoring Supreme Court judgments. The Revenue argued that rental income should be assessed as 'income from house property' and not 'business income', and that the assessee was not eligible for Section 80IA(4)(iii) deduction. The assessee's contentions are not explicitly recorded in the provided text, but their position was upheld by the ITAT.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
1 In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 17.7.2019 Coram : The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and The Honourable Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal Nos.437 to 439 of 2017 & CMP.Nos.10928 & 10929 of 2017 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4, Chennai-34 ...Appellant Vs M/s.Khivraj Tech Park Limited, Chennai-32 ...Respondent APPEALS under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the common order dated 24.8.2016 made in ITA.Nos.1181 to 1183/Mds/2015 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench respectively for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12. For Appellant : Mr.Karthi Ranganathan, SSC For Respondent: Mr.N.V.Balaji COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment was delivered by
T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J)
We have heard Mr.Karthik Ranganathan, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant – Revenue and Mr.N.V.Balaji learned counsel http://www.judis.nic.in 2 appearing for the respondent – assessee. 2. These appeals filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act) are directed against the common order dated 24.8.2016 made in ITA.Nos.1181 to 1183/Mds/2015 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench respectively for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12. 3. The Revenue has filed these appeals by raising the following substantial questions of law : “i. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in upholding the order of the CIT(A) directing the Assessing Officer to treat the rental income from the letting out of property as 'business income' and to allow the claim on deduction under Section 80IA(4)(iii) of the Income Tax Act ? ii. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the rental receipts to be assessed under the head 'income from business' when the assessee was not engaged in any business activity and as the condition for chargeability of property income as provided under the provision of Section 22 of the Income Tax Act are satisfied in the present case and thereby to be assessed under the head 'income from house property' only? iii. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of http://www.judis.nic.in 3 the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in disregarding the fact that the assessee has not developed or developed and maintained an industrial park by 31.3.2006 as stipulated by the Industrial Park Scheme-2002 and hence, the same has not yet been notified by the CBDT, therefore, the assessee is not eligible for claiming deduction under Section 80IA(4)(iii) of the Income Tax Act? iv. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in not following the ratio of the Apex Court's decision in Keyaram Hotels Vs. CIT [reported in (2015) 63 Taxmann.com 301 (SC)] wherein the Apex Court has upheld the Madras High Court's decision reported in 373 ITR 494 that where the assessee was not engaged in any business activity, rental income earned out of letting out of commercial complex would be assessed as 'income from house property' and not as 'business income' and further, whether non appreciation/ignorance of the ratio of decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, while deciding the issue, had made the order of the Tribunal perverse, both in law and facts? And v. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in holding that the rental income of the assessee will qualify for deduction under Section 80IA without giving a clear finding that such income is 'derived from' the eligible business of the assessee and ignoring the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgments?” http://www.judis.nic.in 4 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J AND V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN,J RS 4. The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant has produced a letter in Corporate Circle 4(2)/2017-18 dated 05.1.2018 issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 4(2), Chennai-34 stating that the approval notification from the Central Board of Direct Taxes in respect of deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Act has been received for the respondent and he submits that he has been instructed to withdraw these appeals. 5. The said submission of the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue is recorded. The letter dated 05.1.2018 is placed on record. The above tax case appeals are dismissed as withdrawn. The substantial questions of law are left open. Consequently, the connected CMPs are also dismissed. No costs. 17.7.2019 Internet: Yes To The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench. TCA.Nos.437 to 439 of 2017 & CMP.Nos.10928 & 10929 of 2017 http://www.judis.nic.in
More judgments on Section 80IA(4)(iii)
- Rupa Infotech and Infrastructure Pvt Ltd… vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle…ITA 4750/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: Disposed5 Dec 2025AY 2012-13
- Olympia Tech Park (Chennai) Pvt. Ltd… vs ACIT, Circle-1, Ltu, ChennaiITA 1033/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: Disposed31 Oct 2025AY 2013-14
- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax… vs Olympia Tech Park (Chennai) Private…ITA 886/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed4 Jul 2025AY 2017-18
- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax… vs Olympia Tech Park (Chennai) Private…ITA 873/CHNY/2025[2016]Status: Disposed4 Jul 2025
- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax… vs Olympia Tech Park (Chennai) Private…ITA 832/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed4 Jul 2025AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Fasil Hussain Shah vs. Ut Of J And K Th Commissioner Secretary TO Government Finance Department And OthersJammu and Kashmir and Ladakh · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S. Devkinandan Traders vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Dixit Medical Agencies vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Sukant Kumar vs. Union Of INDIA And 6 OthersAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026