MRS ALKA PANDEY,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -25(2), MUMBAI

PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM

This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated
30.08.2022 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax
(Appeals) [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2015-16, raising following grounds:
1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax erred in adding

Rs.161,704/- the same bein
2. That on th
Assistant
C
Rs.2,479,680
income from u/s 24(a) on t
3 That on the Assistant Co standard ded charges of Rs
2. Briefly stated, individual filed its ret on 29.03.2016 decl income declared incl and amenities to ‘Ko said rental income f
‘income from house thirty percentile agai the assessee was sel the Income-tax Act, complied with. In th on 26.12.2017, the A rate of 30% amoun received from ameni
Aggrieved, the assess not succeed. Aggrieve the grounds as repro
ITA

- as unreconciled rent received as per 26
ng reimbursement for expense incurred.
he facts and circumstances of the case, t
Commissioner of Income
Tax erred
0/- as income from other sources instead o house property and disallowing 30% of the same.
e facts and circumstances of the case, t mmissioner of Income Tax erred in no duction of 30 % amounting Rs.743,904 on s.2,479,680/- facts of the case are that th turn of income for the year unde laring total income at Rs.22
luded rental income from leasin otak Mahindra Bank’. The as from ‘building’ and ‘amenities’
property’ and claimed deductio nst such income. The return of lected for scrutiny and statutor
, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) we e assessment completed u/s 1
Assessing Officer denied the d nting to Rs.7,43,904/- on the ties which was claimed u/s 24
see filed appeal before the Ld. C ed, the assessee is in appeal bef duced above.
Mrs. Alka Pandey
2
A No. 5650/MUM/2024
6AS though the learned d treating of f deduction the learned ot allowing n amenities he assessee, an er consideration
2,56,100/-. The ng of a building ssessee declared under the head on at the rate of f income filed by ry notices under ere issued and 43(3) of the Act deduction at the e rental income
4(a) of the Act .
CIT(A) but could fore ITAT raising

Ld. counsel for the assessee file o 34 comprising of copy of the le ing and utilities /amenities.
nd No. 1 of the appeal is con essee submitted that assessee
In view of statement made at is dismissed as infructuous.
2, the assessee has challenged respect of amenity charges claim o Rs.7,43,904/- by the lower aut brief qua the issue in disput to a rental agreement for leas uhu, Mumbai and claimed said me from house property and cla percentile under section 24(a) o y the AO. Thus, deduction u/s and license agreement of bui ee also entered into amenities or installation of antenna; (ii) s watch and ward securities a assessee claimed that the inco nities was also eligible for ass property’ and claimed the deduc
Mrs. Alka Pandey
3
A No. 5650/MUM/2024
ed a Paper Book eave and license ncerned, the Ld.
did not wish to t bar by the ld disallowance of med u/s 24(a) of thorities.
te are that the sing of building d rental income aimed deduction f the Act, which 24(a) of the Act ilding is not in s agreement for pace for put up and (iv) general ome under this sess under the ction at the rate of 30% in respect o
Assessing Officer tr building and assesse
Ld. CIT(A) conclude assessee has genera from the ownership o of the Assessing Offic
“5.5 Conclus
License Agree purposes, an under the In Agreement ge from House P
Amenities Ag income, which does not ben crucial for ac and ensuring categorized a for the 30% s for income fro from services
5. Before us, the under the amenities space provided for th of the property and n be taxed under the counsel relied on th
Tribunal in the case for assessment year in the said case is rep
ITA f rental income from amenities reated the amenities as sepa d the same as ‘income from oth ed that under the amenities ated service income and which of the property. Therefore, he up cer observing as under:
sion on Agreement Comparison: The L ement and the Amenities Agreement serv nd the income from each is classified d ncome-tax Act, 1961. The Leave and enerates rental income, which is taxable a Property" and is eligible for certain deduc greement, on the other hand, generate h is taxable as "Income from Other Sou nefit from the same deductions. This dis ccurately determining the appellant's ta g compliance with tax laws. Since this as "Income from Other Sources," it does n standard deduction available under Sec om house property. Instead, it is taxed a rendered, which has different tax implica
Ld. counsel for the assessee agreement, the assessee has r he antenna and Glow sign board not any kind of service, therefor head ‘income from other sou he decision of the Co-ordinate of Suguna Kapur in ITA No. 4
r 2009-10. The relevant finding produced as under:
Mrs. Alka Pandey
4
A No. 5650/MUM/2024
s. However, the arable from the her sources’. The agreement, the h is not derived pheld the finding
Leave and ve distinct differently d License as "Income ctions. The es service urces" and stinction is ax liability income is not qualify ction 24(a) as income ations.”
submitted that received rent for d, which is part re, same should urces’. The Ld.
e Bench of the 4117/Del/2012
g of the Tribunal

“6. We have them carefu perusing the deserves to agreements agreement li connection.
electricity co licensee. In i.e assessee the locations required tha list of amen been provid agreements i.e monthly amenities. B been provide the assessee
Ld. DR may entered for considered v either by e evidence. Th account of tw given on lice our conside house prope treated by A agreement provided by 7. The case distinguisha were provid rent and the conditioning therefore, th sources. Ho
High Court h
8. However, agreements amenities. P
ITA e heard the rival submissions and c ully. After considering the submiss e material on record, we find that o succeed on the issue involved.
are placed on record. At last pa ist of amenities is mentioned. First is It is provided that assessee wi onnection however charges will be pa second amenities, it is shown that th e also permit the licensee to put sign s at no extra cost and if any perm at would be obtained by the licensee.
nities, we donot understand what se ded by the assessee. However, two have been made by the assessee: on y license fee and another for se
But as stated above, infact no amen ed by the assessee for which it can be e is charging any license fee. The con y be correct that these two agreemen the purpose of saving house ta view, character of income cannot be ntering two agreements or by mak he amount of license fee earned by as wo agreements infact is on account o ense and the entire income of the pr red view, has to be treated as inc erty and not income from other source
Assessing Officer for the reason that a has been entered on account of assessee.
e laws relied upon by Assessing O able as in both of the case separat ed by the assessee. One house was ere were other amenities like furnitur etc. for which separate rent was ta hat amount was treated as income f on'ble Calcutta High Court as well has upheld these contentions.
in the present case, it is seen tha relate to one property without prov
Providing an electricity connection, it Mrs. Alka Pandey
5
A No. 5650/MUM/2024
considered sions and t assessee
Copy of age of the s electricity ill provide aid by the he licensor nage at all mission is From this ervice has o separate ne for rent ervices of nities have e said that ntention of nts may be ax. In our e changed king other ssessee on of property roperty, in come from es which is a separate amenities
Officer, are te services s given on re and air- aken and, from other as Kerala at both the viding any cannot be said that in assessee. C and not by a 9. Before, Th
Investment, movable prop let out the re furniture, lig services like and other payable incl recovered b
Hon'ble High assessable house prope
Hon'ble Sup dismissed th interfere wit
Court. What provided tha and accordin house prope
10. In the c entered two property an considered property and 11. In case
452, the Ho issue in whi of the agree thereof, was facility of ut cold or con installation installation, been met. Ac from the pr under the h taxed as inco
ITA n regular services, has been provide harges of electricity has been paid b assessee.
he Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of the facts were that the assessee operty. It occupied a proportion of pro est to be used as table space to occup ghts and air-conditioners. The assesse e watch and ward staff, electricity a common amenities. The monthly lusive of all charges. The assessee by way of security from the occup h Court held that income from the pro in the hands of the assessee’s inc erty. The assessee preferred appe preme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme C he appeal holding that there is no th the conclusion arrived at by the Ho tever the common services and amen at were treated as linked with the ren ngly entire income was treated as in rty.
case, in hand also the assessee th o agreements but they related to nd whatever the amount is receive view is to be treated as income fr d not income from other sources.
of Bakhtawar Construction Pvt. Ltd on'ble Bombay High Court has decid ich it was held as under:- “that the tr ements, gleaned from a reading of s that the tenants were given thereb tilizing the product of the installation nditioned air. There was no lettin to the tenants. There being no lett the requirements of section 56(2)(ii ccordingly, the income derived by the remises under the leases could not ead of income from other sources bu ome from property.”
Mrs. Alka Pandey
6
A No. 5650/MUM/2024
ed by the by licensee f Shambhu owned a operty and pants with ee provides and water rent was had also pants. The operty was come from eal to the Court also reason to on'ble High nities were ntal income ncome from hough has the same ed, in our rom house d. 162 ITR ded similar rue purport f all parts y only the n, viz., the ng of the ting of the i) had not e assessee be taxed ut must be 12. The rati
Bombay Hig present case
Hon'ble Mad
14 to 18:
The Licensors to the License
ITA io of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, an gh Court squarely applicable on th e. Similar views have been express dras High Court in case of CIT vs
ITR 422. of the above facts and circumstanc decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme gh Court and also Madras High Court, ered view that entire amount rec n account of two separate agreement income from house property. Accord ssessing Officer to treat the entire cons rom house property. We order accordin n the said case also amenities i n for electricity connection and sign at the location, has been by the assessee and part of ren
We also find that the coordinat of Maker Tower Premises Co- n (2021) 125 taxmann.com 2
me earned by the assessee on ac urpose of installation of the ant rom house property. In the inst r kinds of services are referred eement which is available on P
SCHEDULE
(Details of the facilities/amenities) s shall provide the following facilities/am ee at no extra cost:
Mrs. Alka Pandey
7
A No. 5650/MUM/2024
nd Hon'ble he facts of sed by the s A.S.Jaya ces and in Court and , we are of ceived by ts is to be dingly, we sideration, ngly.”
in the nature of d permitting the held not to be ntal income from te bench of the -op society Ltd
220 ( Mumbai- count of renting enna tower was tant case before in the Schedule
Paper Book page menities

Copy of the Order forward
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent.
3. CIT
4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai
5. Guard file.

////

ITA

Nos. 2 and 3 of the appeal of t for statistical purposes.
the appeal of the assessee nced in the open Court on 29
d/- AUDHARY)
(OM PRAK
MEMBER
ACCOUNTA ded to :

BY ORDER

(Assistant Re

ITAT, Mu

Mrs. Alka Pandey
9
A No. 5650/MUM/2024
the assessee are is allowed for /01/2025. d/-
KASH KANT)
ANT MEMBER
R, gistrar) umbai