No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY
आदेश /O R D E R
PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
All the three appeals of the Revenue are directed against
the common order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax
(Appeals) – II, Chennai, dated 03.11.2014 and pertain to
assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12. Since common
issue arises for consideration in all these appeals, we heard these
appeals together and disposing of the same by this common order.
2 I.T.A. Nos.1181 to 1183/Mds/15
The only issue arises for consideration in all the three appeals is with regard to deduction claimed by the assessee under Section 80-IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act').
Shri Jayaram Raipura, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the assessee claimed deduction under Section 80-IA of the Act in respect of rental income received from building.
According to the Ld. D.R., it is not the business of the assessee to lease out the properties, therefore, the income has to be classified as income from house property. Hence, according to the Ld. D.R., the assessee is not eligible for deduction under Section 80-IA of the
Act.
On the contrary, Shri Ajith Kumar Choradia, the Ld.
representative for the assessee, submitted that the assessee constructed a building called “Olympia Tech Park”. It has all infrastructure facilities with all specifications and amenities required
for IT park. Under normal circumstances, the rental income from property has to be classified as income from house property. In the instant case, according to the Ld. representative, the Olympia Tech Park is located in STPI notified area and CBDT also approved the
3 I.T.A. Nos.1181 to 1183/Mds/15
building for deduction under Section 80-IA(4)(iii) of the Act by an
order dated 15.11.2006. Therefore, according to the Ld.
representative, when the assessee is systematically providing
services to the software development companies, by providing
specified area in the building and other infrastructure facility, this
has to be classified as business of the assessee, therefore,
according to the Ld. representative, the rental income has to be
necessarily classified as “income from business”. According to the
Ld. representative, the CIT(Appeals) by placing reliance on the
judgment of Madras High Court in CIT v. Elnet Technologies Ltd.
(2013) (213 Taxman 129), found that the income from letting out
house property has to be treated as income from business,
therefore, eligible for deduction under Section 80-IA of the Act. In
view of the above, according to the Ld. representative, the
contention of the Ld. D.R. that the income has to be classified as
income from house property is not justified. Referring to the
grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, the Ld. representative
submitted that the judgment of Madras High Court in CIT v. Chennai
Properties and Investments Ltd. (266 ITR 685) was reversed by the
Apex Court, therefore, the judgment of Apex Court in Chennai
4 I.T.A. Nos.1181 to 1183/Mds/15
Properties and Investments Ltd. would support the case of the
assessee.
We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. It is not in
dispute that the assessee established “Olympia Tech Park” for providing infrastructure facilities to software development companies. It is in STPI notified area. The only contention of the
Revenue is that the income from building has to be classified as income from house property, therefore, the assessee is not eligible for deduction under Section 80-IA of the Act. The building of the
assessee is not a mere building. It has infrastructure facilities for the purpose of development of software. The assessee is systematically providing services besides letting out the property.
Therefore, the judgment of Apex Court in Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd. v. CIT (2015) (373 ITR 673) would squarely applicable to the present case. Hence, this Tribunal is of the
considered opinion that the income from letting out of the property has to be classified as “income from business” and the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80-IA of the Act. Therefore, this
5 I.T.A. Nos.1181 to 1183/Mds/15
Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority and accordingly the same is confirmed.
In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed.
Order pronounced on 24th August, 2016 at Chennai.
sd/- sd/- (ए. मोहन अलंकामणी) (एन.आर.एस. गणेशन) (A. Mohan Alankamony) (N.R.S. Ganesan) लेखा सद�य/Accountant Member �या�यक सद�य/Judicial Member
चे�नई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated, the 24th August, 2016.
Kri.
आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��यथ�/Respondent 3. आयकर आयु�त (अपील)/CIT(A)-II, Chennai 4. आयकर आयु�त/CIT-II, Chennai 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध/DR 6. गाड� फाईल/GF.