M/S.HABITAT VENTURE CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD.,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1704/BANG/2016Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 December 2016AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(Appeals) order, which had rightly adjudicated the issues in detail. The Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(Appeals).

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the CIT(Appeals) order regarding the classification of sub-lease activity and disallowance of expenses. The assessee claimed the activity was real estate business, while the CIT(A) held it as leasing business.

What were the issues?

Whether the sub-lease activity should be treated as real estate business or leasing business, and the consequential disallowance of expenses under Section 40(a)(ia).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40(a)(ia)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC - A” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV

For Respondent: Shri R.K. Jha, Jt. CIT(DR)
Hearing: 27.12.2016Pronounced: 27.12.2016

Date of hearing : 27.12.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 27.12.2016 O R D E R

This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order of CIT(Appeals) inter alia on the following grounds:-

“1. The Order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax Appeals, passed under section 250 of the Act in so far as it is against the Appellant is opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities and the facts and circumstances in the Appellant's case.

2. The Learned CIT(A) erred in taking a new view on the activity of sub-lease to be as business activity, which was neither enumerated from the order of the Learned AO nor this was part of the grounds of the appeal filed by the Appellant.

3. The Learned CIT(A) failed to consider and appreciate the facts that the appellant was engaged in real-estate business and incorrectly held that the appellant was in the business of Leasing, which led to inappropriate dis-allowance of expenses u/s 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of Tax which is illegal and bad in law. 4. The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the order of the AO in dis-allowing and adding back to the income of the assessee, a sum of Rs. 30,00,000, the expenses claimed towards sublease income by incorrect application of 40 (a) (ia) of the Income Tax Act under the computation provision of Income from other sources. 5. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or substitute any of the grounds urged above. In the view of the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of the hearing of the appeal, the Appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed in the interest of justice and equity.”

2.

This appeal was listed for hearing on 27.12.2016, but none appeared on behalf of the assessee, despite service of notice of hearing. Since the assessee did not appear, we have no option, but to hear the appeal ex parte, qua the assessee. Accordingly, revenue was heard.

3.

We have carefully examined the order of the CIT(Appeals) on the impugned grounds and we find that he has rightly adjudicated the issues in detail and I find no infirmity therein. Accordingly, I confirm the order of CIT(Appeals).

4.

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed.

Pronounced in the open court on this 27th day of December, 2016.

More judgments on Section 40(a)(ia)

All 7,300 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40(a)(ia) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →