Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (7) TMI 459 - ITAT MUMBAIBusiness Services Charges for providing Business Service Centre - income from house property or Business Income - Held that:- There is no material to establish that the fact-situation in other assessment years brought out by the assessee is any way different from the instant assessment year. Quite clearly, the Assessing Officer has erroneously treated the income from business service centre as income from house property without bringing on record any fact or law situation, which was inconsistent from the other years. Even before us, no cogent change in facts or law has been brought out by the Revenue, which would justify the departure from the earlier stand of treating the income from providing business service centre facility as income from business income. Therefore, on these aspect we set-aside the order of CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to treat the income earned by the assessee from business service centre as ‘income from business’ in conformity with his stand for the other assessment years. Thus, assessee succeeds on this aspect of the controversy. - Decided in favour of assessee Disallowance u/s 14A - Held that:- The case set-up by the assessee is based on the provisions of section 14A(2) of the Act, which requires the Assessing Officer to record a satisfaction about the correctness of the claim by the assessee before proceeding to disallow any expenditure, which according to him has been incurred in relation to earning exempt income. n the present case, we find from the discussion in the assessment order that there is no satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer about the correctness of the claim of the assessee and he has proceeded to re-compute the disallowance under section14A of the Act by applying the provisions of Rule 8D of Income Tax Rules, 1962 in a mechanical manner. Therefore, in our view the action of the Assessing Officer is lacking in jurisdiction and deserves to be set aside. We hold so. As a consequence, we set-aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to retain the disallowance made by the assessee in his return of income and delete the balance. - Decided partly in favour of assessee
|