Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2017 (7) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (7) TMI 815 - HC - Income TaxIncome derived by the assessee from letting out the shops in the "Atlantis Mall" - income from house property OR income from business - Held that:- In the present case according to Memorandums of Association and Articles of Association the Assessing Officer as well as the tribunal have categorically found that the main object of the business of the assessee is to construct Mall and to derive income from letting out the shops therein. Therefore, the income so derived by the assessee may be the income from house property but would ultimately be the business income and as such the Assessing Officer has not committed any error in determining the taxable income of the assessee under the head income from business. In view of the above question no. 1 is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Income Tax Department and it is held that the income derived by the assessee from letting out the shops in the "Atlantis Mall" is income from business for the purposes of assessment of income tax. - Decided in favour of the assessee Revision u/s 263 - as per CIT-A AO had only made the assessment of the taxable income of the assessee on the basis of the income as disclosed by it under the head income from business without considering the other aspects of the matter whether it would fall under the head Income from house property - Held that:- For the proposes of revising an order under Section 363 of the Act two conditions need to be satisfied namely that the order of the Assessing Officer sought to be revised is erroneous and it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Supreme Court went ahead in holding that it has no power to correct each and every mistake or error committed by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, interpreting the expression "prejudicial to the interest of revenue" it held that the order of the Assessing Officer can not be termed as prejudicial simply because the Assessing Officer adopted one of the courses permissible in law resulting in loss of revenue or where two views were possible if the Assessing Officer has taken one view, the Commissioner has no power to interfere. It was accordingly held that in such circumstances, the assessment order can not be treated as an order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. In the present case two views were possible before the Assessing Officer and on the basis of the main objects and the nature of income derived by the Assessee, if he had taken one view of the matter, it could not have been said that it was erroneous in law or was likely to cause prejudice to the revenue so as to permit any interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the Commissioner. - Decided against revenue
|