ACIT 13(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. SMRUTA ENGINEERING INDUSRIES P.LTD, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4951/MUM/2016Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 January 2017AY 2011-123 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found it appropriate to remand the issue back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) is to consider the company's main objects and the circumstances of renting out assets, along with relevant Supreme Court judgments.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed the CIT(A)'s order which allowed the assessee to treat rental income from factory premises as business income, permitting depreciation and expenses. The Assessing Officer had classified it as income from house property.

What were the issues?

Whether rental income from factory premises should be treated as business income or income from house property, considering the company's objects and Supreme Court precedents.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 14,Section 22,Section 37)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “J” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH

For Appellant: Shri Tufail Ahmad Khan, DR
For Respondent: Shri Vimal Punmiya
Hearing: 12.01.2017Pronounced: 12.01.2017

सुनवाई की तायीख / Date of Hearing : 12.01.2017 घोषणा की तायीख /Date of Pronouncement : 12.01.2017 आदेश / O R D E R PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM:

This appeal filed by the Revenue on 03.08.2016 is against the order of the CIT (A)-21, Mumbai dated 16.05.2016 for the assessment year 2011-2012. In this appeal, Revenue raised the following ground which reads as under:- “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) was justified in assessing the rental income of Rs. 1,08,00,000/- under the head of income from business and thus allowing the claim of depreciation and other expenses against the same without appreciating the fact that the rent agreement is for letting out the land and factory shed only.”

2. Before us, Ld Counsel for the assessee brought our attention to the above ground and submitted that the assessee earned income out of the business activity of renting out the factory premises, plant and machinery etc as a going concern and the same was because of tax under the head „profits and gains from the business or profession‟. The said claim of the assessee was accepted in the past and the later assessment years. However, Assessing Officer thrust on the assessee the head of „income from house property‟ and altered the claim of the assessee in this assessment year. On appeal, CIT (A) granted relief and restored the claim of the assessee. Aggrieved with the same, Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal.

More judgments on Section 14

All 685 judgments and leading authorities on Section 14 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →