JANKAR MECHANICAL WORKS,MUMBAI vs. ITO 15(2)(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1441/MUM/2015Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 January 2017AY 2011-123 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove that the income was not from a simple case of hiring out property. The services provided were considered normal upkeep services, not altering the character of the income.

What were the facts?

The assessee offered income from services rendered to two parties as business income. The Assessing Officer and CIT(A) treated this income as house property income, disagreeing with the assessee's claim of providing embedded services.

What were the issues?

Whether income earned from providing premises along with services is to be treated as business income or house property income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

4.After considering the submission of the assessee and the order of the AO, the FAA held that the list of the machinery stated to be installed in the premises, as appearing in the agreement, were not signed by the lessee, that it was not evident that machinery was forming an integral part of the premises given only, that it could not be held that machinery was given to the lessee and that the consideration was received for the lease of the machinery, that the services agreed to be provided by the assessee were normal security and upkeep services which could not alter the character of the agreement and taxability of income from house property to business income,that it was a simple case of hiring out the property by the assessee,that the income from the same was assessable as house property income.Finally,he upheld the order of the AO.

1441/M/15 Jankar Mechanical Works (11-12)

5.As stated earlier none appeared before us, on behalf of the assessee. The Departmental Representative.supported the order of the FAA.

6.We find that assessee had offered the income received from two parties under the head business income, that the AO and the FAA had taxed the rental income under the head house property income, that nothing has been brought on record to prove that it was not a simple case of hiring.Therefore, we donot want to interfere with the order of the FAA.Upholding his order we decide the effective ground of appeal against the assessee.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →