M/S. KALEBUDDE LOGISTICS,HUBBALLI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the assessee had already included the house property income and commission income in its gross receipts. Therefore, making separate adjustments for these incomes would lead to double assessment. The adjustments made by the CPC under Section 143(1) were liable to be deleted.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a logistics firm, declared income under 'business income' and estimated profit at 9% under Section 44AD. The CPC, during processing, noticed that rental and commission income, which were part of the gross receipts, were not declared under 'Income from House Property' and 'Income from other sources'.
What were the issues?
Whether rental and commission income, already included in gross business receipts, should be assessed separately under 'Income from House Property' and 'Income from other sources', leading to double taxation.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” “A” BENCH, BENGALURU
O R D E R Per: B.R. Baskaran, A.M. The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 6-12- 2021 passed by Ld CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi and it relates to the assessment year 2017-18. The assessee is aggrieved by the addition of Rs.20,38,470/- made to the income declared under the head Income from House property and Rs.2,07,425/- made to the income declared under the head income from other sources.
I heard the parties and perused the record. The assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of warehousing, logistics and undertaking clearing and forwarding operations. The assessee declared its income under the head “income from business”. The gross turnover of the assessee was Rs.1,07,75,739/- and the assessee declared income @ 9% u/s 44AD of the Act. It so happened that the payers of the rental income and commission income had deducted tax at source from the payments made by them. While processing return of income u/s 143(1), the CPC noticed that the assessee has not declared any income under the head Income from House Property and Income from other sources. Accordingly,
M/s. Kalebudde Logistics adjustments were made in the intimation by including house property income of Rs.20,38,470/- and income from other sources of Rs.2,07,425/-.
The assessee filed appeal before ld CIT(A) mentioning above facts. The Ld CIT(A) took the view that the assessee should have declared income under the head Income from house property and income from other sources, instead of considering them as business income. Accordingly, he dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal.
I notice that the assessee has furnished break-up details of is gross receipts as under before Ld CIT(A):-
Truck hire charges receipts - 76,56,214 Godown sub-letting charges - 29,12,100 Commission received - 2,07,125 ----------------- Total 1,07,75,739 ============ The Ld A.R submitted that the adjustment made to house property income amounting to Rs.20,38,470/- is included in the Godown sub-letting charges of Rs.29,12,100/-. Similarly the adjustment made to income under the head Income from other sources is the commission income of Rs.2,07,125/- included in the gross receipts. Accordingly, the Ld A.R submitted that both these amounts have already been included in the gross receipts on which income has been estimated by the assessee. Accordingly, he submitted that there is no necessity to make any further adjustment and the same leads to double assessment of same income.
I heard Ld D.R. From the facts discussed above, I find merit in the submissions made by the assessee. As pointed by him, the assessee has already included the house property income and commission income in its gross receipts. In that case, there is no necessity to make any separate adjustments again. The CPC has taken the view that the said incomes are assessable as house property income/other sources income. However, the assessee has considered the same as business income. The view so taken by CPC is debatable one. In any case, it is established that there is no M/s. Kalebudde Logistics omission on the part of the assessee to include both the income in its gross receipts. Hence the adjustments made by CPC u/s 143(1) are liable to be deleted. Accordingly, I set aside the order passed by Ld CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the adjustments of Rs.20,38,470/- and Rs.2,07,425/- made in the intimation given u/s 143(1) of the Act.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Dictated and pronounced in the open Court on 31st May, 2022.
More judgments on Section 44AD
- Mohammed Javed Bhati, Sikar vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, SikarITA 994/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Rangoli Hotel, Mehsana vs DCIT, Circle, Gandhinagar, GandhiangarITA 2286/AHD/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
- Sonu Jain, Agra vs ITO WD(1)(1)(2), AgraITA 671/AGR/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Sarvjeet Singh Through Legal Heir Manjit… vs ITO Ward 1(1), AlwarITA 355/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Kalinga Paper Mart, Sundergarh vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Kabita Nayak vs. Chief Commissioner, CGST, Central Excise And Customs, KhurdaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Swastika Ingot PVT.LTD, Sundargarh vs. The Addl Commissioner, GST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Basudev Logistics, Jagatsinghpur vs. Principal Commissioner, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026