Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM
सुनवाई क� तार�ख / : 26.03.2018 Date of Hearing घोषणा क� तार�ख / : 10.04.2018 Date of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: These are appeals by the assessee against the common order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the concerned assessment years. The common grounds read as under: 1. (i) The Learned CIT (A) has erred in stating that the assessee Company is not in the business of developing properties or in the business of construction without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. The same be considered as business income and additions confirmed by the Learned CIT(A) be deleted. (ii) The Learned CIT (A) has erred in stating that the transactions carried out by the assessee are on mutual concept basis and hence the loss claimed by the assessee is not allowable without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. The transactions be treated as business and the loss be allowed.
2. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in treating Interest on FD and Rental receipts received from non members as taxable income of the assessee as these receipts are not covered by the concept of mutuality. The same be considered as covered under mutuality and the additions be deleted
Brief facts of the case are as under:
The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee company was incorporated on 15.11.1994 and stated to be engaged in the business as builder and developers. The assessee company had constructed a building known as "Ackruti Aastha" situated at 23G, Doongershey Road, Walkeshwar, Mumbai. This building was constructed by the assessee company with the help of capital brought in the shareholders. During the construction period the building was shown as stock-in-trade in the books of the company but the assessee company never made any efforts to sell the building. On completion of the project, the building was converted into a fixed asset and occupancy rights in this building were given to Class-B shareholders of the assessee company.
The Assessing Officer further noted that in the current A.Y.2005-06, the assessee had merely collected the annual contributions from the occupants of the building and made payments for the maintenance of the building. There was no business activity carried out. The Assessing Officer asked the assessee to show cause as to why the activity of the assessee should not be treated as mutual activity and the assessee be treated as a mutual concern. The assessee relied upon its objects and memorandum and articles of association to claim that it had carried out construction activity. The investors have taken entrepreneurial risk and were allotted shares along with occupancy rights in respective flats. When the shareholders sell their shares, gains would be taxable as per Income-tax Act.
The Assessing Officer was not convinced by the submissions. He was of the view that objects mentioned in the Deed of Incorporation are clauses which facilitated the company to carry out business mentioned therein. However, the fact remains that no business was carried out. That the occupancy rights in the flats constructed have been given only to the shareholders and not to any outside party. That this shows that the flats were constructed not for sale but for allowing shareholders to stay in the flats without charging any rent. That the land was purchased from the funds of the shareholders and later the shareholders received occupancy rights in the flats constructed. That the Assessing Officer concluded that the assessee was carrying out only mutual activity. He, therefore, disallowed the claim of loss and claim of depreciation. As regards small income received from non-members/shareholders, the same was assessed as "Income from Other Sources"
Against the above order, the assessee appealed before the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).
Before the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the assessee highlighted the main objects of the company. Further the submissions were as under:
As per Article 7A and B of the Articles of Association, holders of "B" class equity shares conferred right of occupation to the designated flat and parking space in the building to be constructed known as "AkrutiAstha". Vide letter dated 3.2.2003 had offered its shareholders to subscribe to "B" class equity shares at a premium vested with occupancy rights. 4,9. Land was purchased vide agreement dated 24.10.2000 from funds brought in by the shareholders. The building "AkrutiAstha" was constructed on this land and the land cost of Rs 7,15,00,000/- and building construction cost of Rs 410,43,630/- is reflected in the Balance Sheet as Fixed Assets. The "An class shareholders have voting rights and the "B" class shareholders have occupancy rights only. All the flats were given to "B" class shareholders. The appellant company only allotted these flats and did not earn any income on account of allotment of these flats. There was no sale agreements. The company is now in the business of maintenance of the building and collection of maintenance charges from the members. Since no conveyance has been done, no society is formed and ownership is in the possession of the appellant company till date. 4.10. It was claimed that an advertisement had been issued in one local newspaper regarding 'Akruti Aastha, Walkeshwar' in which it was mentioned that possession was to be given in March, 2003 and for enquiries a contact phone number was provided. This advertisement appeared in Gujarat Samachar on 19.02.2002. Thus, the A.O. was incorrect in stating that the appellant did not make any effort to sell the building. 4.11. The shareholders comprised of the Unadkat family and Shah family. The Unadkat family is into real estate activities and have promoted the following companies: - a) Dharni Properties Pvt Ltd. b) Confra Developers Pvt. Ltd. c) Atlantic Hospitalilty Pvt. Ltd. The Shah family is also into real estate activities and have promoted Akruti City Ltd., (Subsequently named changed to Hubtown) and several other companies. The appellant company was floated, the project commenced, the shares were allotted for liquidity with the object of bringing in investors. Another class of shares were floated with different rights for commercial considerations. The share capital comprises of- a) 'A' class shareholders - These are the shareholders having voting rights in the company. b) 'B’ class shareholders - These shareholders are entitled to use the flat attached to the respective shares. 4.12. The building 'AkrutiAastha' was constructed on the land developed with the help of funds brought in by the shareholders in the form of share capital. The appellant company continued to be on the lookout for further potential projects for future expansion but nothing has materialized till date. On this basis, the appellant claimed that the expenses claimed should be allowed as business expenses and loss claimed should be allowed to be carried forward. 4.13. As regards the income of Rs.2,62,973/- treated as "Income from Other Sources" in AY 2005-06, it was submitted that the same are very much business in nature. 4.14. Further details were filed by the appellant as additional evidence comprising of details of 'A' and ‘B' class shareholders, details of occupants of the building named 'Akruti Aashtha' and copies of documents with regard to occupancy rights of the shareholders. The same was forwarded to the A.O. vide this office letter dated 19.06.2017 for furnishing a remand report after carrying out any further enquiries as deemed fit and giving the appellant reasonable opportunity of being heard. Since the report was not submitted, reminder was issued dated 31.07.2017 calling for the report by 23.08.2017. No report has been submitted till date. In any case, the factual details of allotment of shares and occupancy is relevant in deciding the issue at hand is actually part of factual history of this case. Some further details were called regarding the construction of the project, the issue of shares and the income and expenditure reflected since inception. The same were submitted.However, details prior to AY 2005-06 were not provided by the appellant.
Considering the above, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) referred to the details of the Class ‘A’ and Class ‘B’ shareholders and the details thereof in his appellate order. From the details so produced, he observed that a perusal of the same show that the predominantly it is the Unadkat family and Shah family, who are the shareholders and also the occupants of the flats constructed. He further noted that the identical letters were issued to various ‘B’ Class equity shareholders to whom shares were issued at premium. He referred to one such example of the letter as under:
Dharni Properties Private Limited Regd. Office : 201, MUKHYADHYAPAKBHAVAN, ROADNO.24 SION (W), MUMBAI 400022 December 26, 2002 The Board of Directors AkrutiNirman Limited. Mumbai
Dear Sirs, Sub : Issue of 1425 'B' Class Equity Shares of Rs,5,000 each for cash at a premium of Rs.2,385/- per share aggregating Rs.l,05,23,625/- on private placement basis. The Company has on hand, an on-going residential building Project at Walkeshwar, Mumbai whose construction is in progress. The Project involves huge capital outlay and given the continued economic recession coupled with stagnant growth in the construction and realty industry, it is imperative that efforts be made to raise finance at the lowest possible cost that would lower the project cost and ultimately contribute to the profitability and growth of the Company. Keeping this end in view, the Board of Directors of the Company at its meeting held on December 26, 2002 decided to raise finance to meet the capital cost of the said Project and to augment the long terms resources of the Company by making an issue of 1,425 'B' class equity shares of Rs.5,000 each for cash at a premium of Rs.2,385 per share aggregating Rs.l,05,23,625 (share capital Rs.71,25,000 and securities premium Rs.33,98,625) on private placement basis to AkrutiNirman Ltd. on such terms and conditions as the Board of Directors may in its absolute discretion think fit. Accordingly, we hereby offer to you 1,425 'B' class equity shares ofRs.5,000 each at a premium of Rs.2,385 per share in the share capital of the Company for your subscription. Only 23% of the issue price i.e.Rs.24,20,434 is payable as application money (share capital Rs.l, 150 per share and securities premium Rs.548.55 per share) by means of cheque/bankers' cheque favouring 'Dhami Properties Private Limited' payable at Mumbai. The balance amount of the issue price shall be payable at the absolute discretion of the Board of Directors of the Company. You are requested to do the needful in the matter. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, For Dhami Properties Private Limited. Sd. Authorised Signatory
Thereafter, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) noted that the letter of allotment was also issued on 25.3.2003 to the same allottee of ‘B’ Class equity shareholders mentioned above, as per which Flat No. 2 in "AkrutiAastha” was allotted.
The letter was as follows:
DHARNI PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED Akruti Trade Centre, Road JVo.7, Marol MIDC, Andheri(E), Mumbai-400093
LETTER OF ALLOTMENT Date : 25th March, 2003 To, M/s.AkrutiNirman Limited. Mumbai. Dear Madam/ Sir, Re : Allotment of Flat No. 2 on 2nd Floor building known as "AkrutiAastha" constructed by the Company lying and situated at Malabar Hill, Mumbai This is inform you that in pursuance to the resolution passed at the Extra Ordinary General Meeting of the Company held on 21st March, 2003 and further in pursuance to the provisions contained in Article-7 of the Articles of Association of the Company followed by resolution passed by the Board of Directors of the Company in its meeting held on 24th March, 2003, you have been irrevocably allotted the right to use, occupy and possess Flat No.2 on the 2nd Floor, in the building known as "AkrutiAastha" constructed by the Company lying and situated at Malabar Hill, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as "the designated premises"). You are entitled to the aforesaid benefit of allotment since you are the owner and holder of 1425 fully paid up "B" Class equity shares of Rs.5,000/- each bearing Distinctive Nos.B8536 to B9960 (both inclusive) of the Company, By virtue of your holding the aforesaid shares in the Company and pursuant to the provisions contained in Article-7 of the Articles of Association of the Company, we confirm having earmarked the designated premises in your favour and that we have today handed over to you the quiet vacant and peaceful possession of the designated premises. Kindly confirm your acceptance of the above by appending your hands and to the duplicate hereof. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, We confirm the above, For DHARNI PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED. For AKRUTI NIRMAN LIMITED DIRECTOR DIRECTOR
The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) further noted that vide another letter of allotment dated 25.03.2003, car parking space was also allotted to the same Class of shareholders. Hence, he held that this Class ‘B’ equity shareholders are entitled to occupancy of the corresponding flat and parking space. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) gave a finding that this is the background for all the flats constructed by the assessee company. He further noted that the excess money saved on construction was returned to the subscribers of the ‘B’ class shareholders by buying back a part of the shares in February and March, 2004. Thus, 177 shares out of 1425 shares issued were brought back, leaving 1248 shares. Furthermore, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) gave the following findings:
4.20. In few cases, the flats were effectively transferred to another person by buying back the fully paid up ‘B' class equity shares at the same issue price at which it was issued originally and these shares were then reissued to another person with the same rights to occupy the flat and use car parking space. For instance 1248 B class shares held by Champaben and JaysukhlalUnadkat each were transferred to SonalUnadkat/Sanjay Unadkat and AartiUndakat/Pranav Unadkat. Similarly 1248 B class shares held by Akkadian Infotech & Communication P. Ltd. was transferred to Nisha Gandhi who subsequently transferred it to Reetu Gandhi. These transfers allowed the transferee to enjoy same occupation rights to the same flat allotted earlier.
4.21. Further, details were called in respect of investors in the appellate appellant company. From the details called and filed, it is noted that AkrutiNirman Ltd. was later renamed as Akruti City Ltd. In all the cases of allotment of class 13' shares, the appellant company offered to buy back the equity shares from the investors vide letter of offer dated 26.02.2004. The excess amount paid was thereby refunded to the class 'B' shareholders on rata basis. For instance in the case of AkrutiNirman Ltd., 177 shares were bought back and amount of Rs. 13,05,375/- was refunded to the investor. Thus out of 1425 equity shares initially allotted, the balance remaining after buy back was 1248 equity shares.
4.22. The allotment letters were issued dated 29.03.2004 for the flat and car parking after the partial buy back of the shares. In the case of Jaishuklal Unadkat/Champaben Unadkat who were allotted flat numbers 6 and flat number 7, subsequently the shares were transferred to Sonal Unadkat and Aarti Unadkat by way of gift deed dated 01.02.2012. Thus, the transferee became entitled to occupy these flats.
4.23. In the case of shares initially allotted to Akkadian Infotech & Comm. Pvt. Ltd. to whom flat No.9 was allotted, the shares were transferred to Nisha Gandhi and upon her death the same was transferred to Reetu Gandhi by way of will. Thus transferee was entitled to occupy flat.
From the above and after perusing the profit and loss account, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) observed as under: 4.24. A perusal of the P & L Account of the appellant company over the years shows that the direct income comprises of collection in respect of various expenses of the flats such as electric charges, lift maintenance, municipal tax, repairs, water charges and general and administrative expenses. These are shown as collection of the respective charges in the P & L Account. The indirect incomes comprise of interest received and other such other income from 3rd parties. As against the above income, the expenses predominantly comprise the building repairs and maintenance and electricity charges, miscellaneous charges lift repair and maintenance, property tax and similar expenses apart from depreciation. 4.25. It is thus clear that the appellant is merely similarly owning the building in which the flats have been allotted to the shareholders. The expenses are incurred for common maintenance of the flats and building, property taxes payable and similar common expenses which are recovered from the occupants of the flats /shareholders of the company. It is not even as if the flats are rented out to 3rd parties. The factual position is not different than the case of a mutual society such as a club for housing society where the shareholders are the members of the society who contribute to the regular maintenance and expenses on common facilities provided. 4.26. It is noted that the appellant company is owned by the Unadkat and Shah families. They pooled in funds as equity share capital of Rs 100 lakhs as "Aw class equity shares and Rs.100 lakhs as "B" class equity shares with premium. They are the only investors of the two class of shares. The appellant company has after incorporation on 15.11.1994 so far constructed only one building known as "Ackruti Aastha" situated at 23G, Doongershey Road, Walkeshwar, Mumbai. The completion certificate was issued in 2002. The building comprises of 13 floors of which the ground floor is parking and first floor is stilt. Flats are allotted from 2nd floor onwards to the "B" class shareholders to whom parking is also allotted. The 8th floor is a refuge floor. 4.27. Now the actual facts over the last 20 years clearly shows that there is no apparent business of the appellant company. It has not sold any flats. It did not raise any borrowings to finance its construction. The two families alone subscribed
to the share capital and are the occupants of the building constructed. The appellant company does not even derive rent income from the flats constructed. It recovers amounts from the occupants towards property taxes, repairs and maintenance, and common expenses. This more in the nature of making common payments and recovering from the owner/occupants. It was claimed that the appellant company intended to sell the flats constructed by giving instance of a solitary advertisement in 2002. At the same time it also issued "B" class shares at the same time with occupancy rights to the owner promoter family in the same year 2002. Thus, it is clear that whatever may have been the original intention as per the MOA, there is no business carried out in the years for which appeals are filed.
4.28. Now, the major expense claimed is depreciation on the property. The property is occupied by shareholders having occupancy rights. Thus, it is not used for the appellant's own use. Even if it was assumed that the property was kept for and intended to be sold later, it would be in the nature of stock in trade on which no depreciation claim can be made. It is a different matter that by virtue of terms on which class "B" shares were issued granting occupancy rights, the question of sale of property does not arise. If it is assumed that the appellant is providing maintenance services, then again the property is not an asset used for such service business since a service provider does not have to own and use the building for providing such services. Thus looked at from whichever way, there is no basis for claiming depreciation on the building. Such depreciation claim is rejected.
Thereafter the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) discussed the concept of mutuality and referred to the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Royal Western India Turf Club Ltd. [1953] 24 ITR 551 (SC) and CIT vs. Bankipur Club Ltd. [1981] 129 ITR 787 (Patna). The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) concluded as under:
4.32. Applying the principles to the facts on hand, it is noted that the flats are effectively enjoyed by the shareholders as a legal right arising from its shareholdings. The two class of shareholders are effectively the same. The amounts raised from the occupants of the flats/shareholders are towards the expenses associated with the property enjoyed by the same persons. There is no intention nor were any profits generated by the appellant company over this period of time. However, as regards interest income from FDs and other income earned from third parties, the same is not covered by principle of mutuality.
4.33. In some ways, the facts in the case before me are similar to cases of Co- operative Housing Societies where property vests in the society, the members hold shares and have occupancy rights over the flats and contribute towards the common expenses. In such cases, depreciation claim is not allowed to the CHS. In the case reported in [2017] 83 taxmann.com 74 (Mumbai - Trib.) in the case of Income-tax Officer 19(2)(4), Mumbaif.Nav Shanti Nagar CHS Ltd. it was held as seen from head notes that: "Section 4 of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Mutual concern - Assessable as (Housing society) - Assessment year 2005-06 - Where voluntary contributions towards special repair funds made by outgoing members of assesses, a housing society, had no element of trading or commerciality, it was covered by principle of mutuality [In favour of assessee] Section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Depreciation - Unabsorbed depreciation (Carry forward and set off of) - Assessment year 2005-06 - Where assessee-society was governed by principle of mutuality and it was not carrying on any business, it was not eligible to carry forward and set off of unabsorbed depreciation [In favour of revenue]"
4.34. Now coming to the contention of the appellant that if the principle of mutuality is to be applied then the same will cover the interest and other income also. As noted earlier, the Apex Court in the case of Bangalore Club has clearly noted the distinction where income is earned from transaction with third party with commercial motive. Such income is taxable. Hence this contention of the appellant is rejected.
Against the above order, the assessee is in appeal before the ITAT.
I have heard both the counsel and perused the records. It is noted that the assessee company was incorporated in 1994 and was stated to be engaged in the business as builders and developers. The assessee company had constructed a building. The building was constructed by the assessee company with the help of capital by the shareholders.
During the construction period, the building was shown as stock-in-trade in the books of account of the company. Later on, upon completion of the project the building was converted into a fixed asset and the occupancy right of the building was given to the shareholders of the assessee company. In this factual background, it has been held by the authorities below that no business has actually been carried out by the assessee. The assessee company has constructed the flats with the help of shareholder’s money and has given the same to the shareholders only. No flats have been given to a single outside party. From this, it has been reasonably inferred that the assessee has not carried out any business. It has only done mutual activity. To counter this, the assessee has claimed that efforts were made to sell the building to the outsiders. For this, advertisement in a local vernacular newspaper has been given. However, I agree with the authorities below that the facts of the case and the conduct of the assessee in allocating all the flats to the shareholders clearly indicate that the assessee has tried to sell the flat in the building and not a single party from outside has shown interest, is not acceptable.
The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has referred to the Class ‘A’ and Class ‘B’ shareholders and the details thereof and has given a detailed finding and reference to the documents that the shareholders are predominantly the Unadkat family and Shah family, who are the shareholders and also the occupants of the flats constructed.
The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in this regard has referred to the sample, letter of allotments and the allotment for car parking, etc. and has found that the same is the background of all the flats constructed by the assessee and it is only the shareholders who have been given occupancy of the corresponding flats and parking space. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further referred to various details and found that all the scheme and action of the assessee indicates that the scheme has been to let only the shareholders occupy the flat. I find that these findings are finding of the fact and have not at all been cogently rebutted by the ld. Counsel of the assessee. I further note that a perusal of the profit and loss account of the assessee company over the years shows that the direct income comprises of collection in respect of various expenses of the flats such as electric charges, lift maintenance, municipal tax, repairs, water charges and general and administrative expenses. These have been shown as collection of the respective charges in the P & L Account. The indirect incomes comprise of interest received and other such other income from outsider/3rd parties. As against the above income, the expenses predominantly comprise the building repairs and maintenance and electricity charges, miscellaneous charges lift repair and maintenance, property tax and similar expenses apart from depreciation. From the above, it is apparent that the factual position in this case is not different than the case of a mutual society where the shareholders are the members of the society who contribute to the regular maintenance and expenses on common facilities provided.
The facts of the case clearly exhibit that it is Unadkat family and Shah family who have pooled in funds as "A” class equity shares and as "B" class equity shares with premium. They are the only investors of the two classes of shares. All the flats have been allotted to these families only. These facts are subsisting for the past 20 years. No other construction activity has taken by the assessee for over more than a period of 20 years.
The assessee has not sold any flat to outsider. The assessee did not raise any borrowings to finance its construction. The two families alone subscribed to the share capital and are the occupants of the building constructed. The assessee’s claim that it has intended to sell the flats is not at all cogent from the facts of the case as subsisting for the past 20 years.
By way of the scheme and mechanism, the assessee has claimed depreciation as major expenses of the property without carrying on any business activity. The property is occupied by the shareholders having occupancy rights. It is not being used by the assessee company. Even if it is assumed that the property was kept and intended to be sold later, it would be in the nature of stock-in-trade on which no depreciation can be made, and now since the Class B shareholders have been issued occupancy rights, there is no question of the sale of the property. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is quite correct in holding that even if it is assumed that the assessee is providing maintenance and services, then again the property is not an asset used for such service since a service provider does not have to own and use the building for providing such services. Thus, I agree with the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that looked at from whichever angle, there is no basis for claiming depreciation on the building. Hence, in my considered opinion, the ld. CIT(Appeals) is correct in upholding the Assessing Officer’s action of disallowing the claim of loss and depreciation.
I further find that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is quite correct in appreciating the mutuality concept applicable in this case and his reference to the following case laws is also germane:
Royal Western India Turf Club Ltd. (supra); and 2. Bankipur Club Ltd. (supra)
Thus, I find that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is very correct in appreciating the facts of the case and applying the above case laws. I find myself in agreement with the same. Even at the sake of repetition, I may gainfully refer to the concluding portion of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) with which I find myself fully in agreement:
Applying the principles to the facts on hand, it is noted that the flats are effectively enjoyed by the shareholders as a legal right arising from its shareholdings. The two class of shareholders are effectively the same. The amounts raised from the occupants of the flats/shareholders are towards the expenses associated with the property enjoyed by the same persons. There is no intention nor were any profits generated by the appellant company over this period of time. However, as regards interest income from FDs and other income earned from third parties, the same is not covered by principle of mutuality. In some ways, the facts in the case before me are similar to cases of Co-operative Housing Societies where property vests in the society, the members hold shares and have occupancy rights over the flats and contribute towards the common expenses. In such cases, depreciation claim is not allowed to the CHS. In the case reported in [2017] 83 taxmann.com 74 (Mumbai - Trib.) in the case of Income-tax Officer 19(2)(4), Mumbaif.Nav Shanti Nagar CHS Ltd. it was held as seen from head notes that: "Section 4 of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Mutual concern - Assessable as (Housing society) - Assessment year 2005-06 - Where voluntary contributions towards special repair funds made by outgoing members of assesses, a housing society, had no element of trading or commerciality, it was covered by principle of mutuality [In favour of assessee] Section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Depreciation - Unabsorbed depreciation (Carry forward and set off of) - Assessment year 2005-06 - Where assessee-society was governed by principle of mutuality and it was not carrying on any business, it was not eligible to carry forward and set off of unabsorbed depreciation [In favour of revenue]" Now coming to the contention of the appellant that if the principle of mutuality is to be applied then the same will cover the interest and other income also. As noted earlier, the Apex Court in the case of Bangalore Club has clearly noted the distinction where income is earned from transaction with third party with commercial motive. Such income is taxable. Hence this contention of the appellant is rejected.
In the background of the aforesaid discussion and precedent, I do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and accordingly I uphold the same.
In the result, these appeals filed by the assessee stands rejected. Order pronounced in the open court on 10.04.2018 Sd/- (Shamim Yahya) लेखा सद�य / Accountant Member मुंबई Mumbai; �दनांक Dated :10.04.2018 व.�न.स./Roshani, Sr. PS आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent 2. आयकर आयु�त(अपील) / The CIT(A) 3. आयकर आयु�त / CIT - concerned 4. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, मुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गाड� फाईल / Guard File 6. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,