TRICHUR TECHNO PARK P. LTD,THRISSUR vs. THE ITO, THRISSUR

It emerges during the course of hearing that the assessee’s sole issue substantive question arises for our apt adjudication herein is that of treatment of a sum of Rs.4,62,057/- which is stated to have been derived from sale of rubber produce grown on its technopark land.

Learned DR vehemently supported both the lower authorities’ findings that they had rightly declined business income plea. She further took us to the detailed assessment findings in the assessment order dated 2 M/s. Kunnummakkara Service/Income Tax Officer, W(2)(2) 27.12.2016 disallowing corresponding expenditure claim of Rs.3,51,340/- as well thereby assessing the total amount herein above as income from “other” sources. Suffice to say, the CIT(A) has affirmed the Assessing Officer’s action in principle but accepted the assessee’s expenditure claim under Section 57(iii) of the Act as wholly and exclusively incurred for the above residuary head of income.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the foregoing Revenue’s contentions and find that this tribunal’s Special Bench’s decision in Inventaa Industries Pvt. Ltd. case (2018) 95 taxmann.com162 (Hyd)(SB), has already settled the issue by holding that it is nowhere necessary for a company to own agricultural land for deriving Section 10(1) exempt income per se. We make it clear that the said assessee had in fact derived income from sale of mushroom only. Faced with this situation we accept the assessee’s instant sole substantive grievance. Ordered accordingly. Necessary computation shall follow as per law.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms.