What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that identical issues for prior assessment years were decided in favor of the assessee by the Tribunal itself. Therefore, following the precedent, the matter was remanded back to the AO for a fresh decision.

The assessee declared a low total income, but the AO found no business activity and disallowed expenses, treating interest income as 'Income from other sources'. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's order.

What were the issues?

Whether interest income from inter-corporate deposits should be treated as business income or income from other sources, and the allowability of expenses when business activity is temporarily suspended.

Travotel (India) P.Ltd vs ITO | ITAT Mumbai 2017

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “H”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI D.T. GARASIA & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, A.R

For Respondent: Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen, D.R

Hearing: 11.04.2017Pronounced: 12.05.2017

Per D.T. Garasia, Judicial Member:

The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 02.02.2016 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] relevant to assessment year 2011-12.

In this appeal the assessee has raised two grounds of appeal. Ground No.1 relates to disallowance of expenses and ground No.2 relates to computation of income under the head “Income from other sources”.

3. The short facts of the case are that the assessee has filed its return of income on 27.09.2011 for the assessment year 2011-12 declaring total income at Rs.93,070/-. The case was selected for scrutiny. The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the AO) found that no business activity was carried on by the assessee during the year. The AO served notice to the assessee requiring the assessee to furnish various details. The assessee submitted before

2 M/s. Travotel (India) Pvt. Ltd. the AO that there was temporary suspension of business and was not a case of discontinuation. The assessee further stated before the AO that the assessee was also engaged in the business of lending money and placing funds in ICDs, hence, the income from the same is assessable as “Business Income”. He further stated before the AO that the interest income earned on inter corporate deposit during the year under consideration is assessable under the head as ‘Business income’ and not under the head ‘Income from other sources.’ The AO did not accept the contention of the assessee and completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act assessing total income at Rs.7,45,632 by disallowing expenses of Rs.6,52,566/-.

The matter carried to Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A) has also dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties. Before us, the Ld. A.R. has submitted that Tribunal, in the own case of the assessee for the assessment years 2005-06 & 2006-07 vide order dated 25.04.2016, has already dealt with the identical issue and decided in favour of the assessee, hence, the matter may be decided accordingly.

We have considered the submissions made by both the parties and have also gone through the order of the Tribunal submitted by the Ld. A.R. We find that the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for the assessment years 2005-06 & 2006-07 dated 25.04.2016 has already dealt with the identical issues and decided in favour of the assessee by following Tribunal’s order dated 19.03.2009 in in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2001-02. Hence, respectfully following the same ratio laid down by the Tribunal vide order dated 25.04.2016 in the assessee’s own case for the assessment years 2005-06 & 2006-07, we remand the matter back to the file of the AO for decision afresh.

Order pronounced in the open court on 12.05.2017.

TRAVOTEL (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 2(3)(3), MUMBAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments