ACIT 2(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. FANCY CORORATION LTD, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1095/MUM/2017Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 June 2017AY 2008-093 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that it had previously ruled in the assessee's own case that such rental receipts should be assessed under business income. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order as it followed the ITAT's precedent.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order which held that rental receipts from subletting factory premises along with furniture and fixtures should be taxed as business income, not income from other sources. The CIT(A) also allowed expenses claimed against this rental income.

What were the issues?

Whether rental receipts from subletting factory premises with furniture and fixtures after cessation of manufacturing activities should be taxed as business income or income from other sources, and whether related expenses are allowable.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “SMC”, MUMBAI

Before: Shri Shamim Yahya

For Appellant: Shri B.Satyanarayana Raju, Shri Jitendra Singh
For Respondent: Shri Jitendra Singh
Hearing: 18.05.2017Pronounced: 05.06.2017

O R D E R This appeal by the Revenue is directed against order of learned CIT(A) dated 25.11.2016 and pertains to assessment year 2008-2009. 2. Grounds of appeal

1.

read as under:- “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in allowing relief to the assessee to the extent impugned in the grounds enumerated below:

1. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in holding that the rental receipts from subletting of `factory premises’ along with `furniture & fixture’ after manufacturing activities have ceased should be taxed under the head `Business income’ instead of `income from other sources’.

. M/s.Fancy Corporation Limited.

2.

On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in allowing the expenses claimed by the assessee against the rental income. For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, the decision of the CIT(A) may be set aside and that of the AO restored.”

3.

At the outset in this case, learned Counsel of the assessee submitted that this Tribunal in assessee’s own case vide order dated 06.06.2014 has decided the same issue in favour of the assessee. Hence learned Counsel claimed that the learned CIT(A) has followed the order of the ITAT. Hence is submitted that there is no infirmity in the same. Learned Departmental Representative fairly agreed to this proposition.

4.

Upon careful consideration, I note that this Tribunal in assessee’s own case as above has held that the activity of the assessee cannot be treated to be that of letting of the property, but the same should be assessed under the business income as claimed by the assessee. Since the learned CIT(A) has followed the order of the ITAT, we do not find any infirmity in the order of learned CIT(A). Accordingly we uphold the same.

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed.

Order pronounced on this 05th day of June, 2017. (Shamim Yahya) लेखा सद"य सद"य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER मुंबई Mumbai; "दनांक Dated : 05th June, 2017. Devdas* . M/s.Fancy Corporation Limited.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →