9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Delay in filing the appeal. 2. Deletion of addition as rent receivable. 3. Classification of service charges as business income or income from house property. Summary: 1. Delay in Filing the Appeal: The Revenue filed the appeal with an 18-day delay. After reviewing the condonation petition and hearing both sides, the Tribunal found the delay to be for a reasonable cause and admitted the appeal for hearing on merits. 2. Deletion of Addition as Rent Receivable: The Revenue challenged the deletion of an addition of Rs. 1,65,46,320/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) as rent receivable. The Tribunal noted that the issue was covered by its earlier decision in the assessee's own case for AY 2005-06. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, which was based on the principle that the annual value of the property should be determined as per the actual rent received or receivable, following the provisions of Section 23 of the IT Act. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's grounds, citing the precedent set by the Coordinate Bench and the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court. 3. Classification of Service Charges: The Revenue contended that service charges received from tenants should be treated as income from house property, referencing the decision in Shambhu Investment (P) Ltd. [249 ITR 47]. The Tribunal, however, upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that service charges were business income. The Tribunal found that the assessee had separate agreements for tenancy and services, and provided common services to all occupants, including non-tenants. The Tribunal relied on the jurisdictional High Court decisions in CIT vs. Model Mfg. Co. (P) Ltd. [175 ITR 374] and CIT vs. Russel Properties Pvt. Ltd. [137 ITR 473], which supported the classification of such income as business income. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's grounds on this issue as well. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s order on all grounds. The decision was pronounced in the Court on 31.03.2010.
|
