TAMILNADU TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal challenging the confirmation of disallowance of franchise fee claimed under section 24 of the Act. Similar ground was raised in the assessment year 2012-13.

Both the parties have conceded that the issue involved in both the appeals is squarely covered against the assessee in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in assessee’s own case for the assessment years 2005- 06 and 2006-07, which was followed by the authorities below to decide the issue against the assessee.

We have heard both sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. The Assessing Officer has noticed from the statement of income tax that assessee has received sum of ₹.1,97,94,431/- as franchise fee and same was treated as Income from house property and claimed deduction under section 24 @ 30% to the tune of ₹.59,38,329/ -. The assessee has submitted franchise agreements made with various parties before the Assessing Officer. After considering the submissions of the assessee and by following the decision of Hon'ble High Court in the assessee's own case, the Assessing Officer disallowed ₹.59,38,329/- and brought to tax. On appeal, by following the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in assessee’s own case, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition made on this account, wherein, the Hon’ble High Court has observed as under: "13. As is evident from the various clauses in the above agreement, the assessee has not leased out the property merely as a land and building, but also with further conditions as to how the business of the lessees/ franchisees should be conducted with regard to the hotel industry only. The Special conditions of contract make it clear that the name of the assessee should clearly, in fact, prominently be indicated in the name Board and the name of the franchisee should be below the name of TTDC, thereby, making it clear that the TTDC continues to be operating their business through their franchisees. Thus the Special conditions make it clear that the assessee corporation continues to be in the business of tourism activities, though not directly but through the franchisees and has received income as franchisee fee and that cannot be lost sight of while determining the nature of income.

We also find much force in the findings of the Tribunal that the properties let out by the assessee are business assets of the assessee corporation, as they have not treated the leased out properties as non- business assets of the assessee-corporation. It is relevant to state the definition of the word 'franchisee' mentioned the dictionary, which reads as follows: "any special right, privilege, or exemption granted by the government, as to be a corporation, operate a public utility, etc."

In the decision reported in (2008) 300 ITR 118 (Mad) (Keyaram Hotels (P) Ltd. V. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax) while dealing with the income earned by the assessee therein by letting out the property, this Court held as follows: "Before the authorities under the Act as well as the Tribunal, the assessee has not placed any materials to support its case that the property from which income has been derived was used as business property and the exploitation of the property was in the nature of the business of the assessee company." 16. In this case, we find that the assessee has given a special right or privilege to the franchisees to undertake a particular business in the property of the assessee on receipt of franchisee fee. Therefore, the income is clearly in the nature of business income and not income from house property. Hence, the decision reported in (2008) 300 ITR 118 (Mad)(Keyaram Hotels (P) Ltd. V. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax) does not applicable to the facts of the case. 17. We find that the reasoning of the Tribunal is justified in the facts of the case. Accordingly, we find no question of law much less any substantial question of law arises for consideration, in the above Tax case (Appeals). " 6.1 Respectfully following the decision of Madras High Court in the assessee's own case T.C.(Appeal) Nos. 341 and 342 of 2014 and MP No.1 of 2014 M/s. Tamil Nadu Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. vs. DCIT dt.24.9.2014, the deduction claimed by the assessee under section 24 of the Act against the franchise fee of ₹.59,38,329/- was disallowed by the Assessing Officer in the assessment year 2007-08 and ₹.1,13,22,307/- was disallowed in the assessment year 2012-13, which was rightly confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). Hence, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) for both the assessment years. Accordingly, the ground raised by the assessee in both the assessment years is dismissed.

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced on the 10th July, 2017 at Chennai.