Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2018 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (8) TMI 911 - AT - Income TaxIncome received from undivided share in I.T.Park - income from business or house property - Held that:- the assessee may not have constructed the I.T.Park he is a developer of the I.T.Park. From the Memorandum of Association of the assessee company he has found that the main object of the assessee company “is to carry on all or any of the business as estate builders of residential, office or any other type of accommodation and for that purpose to buy, hold and sell or otherwise deal in lands, sites and other immovable and movable properties”. In fact, the Assessing Officer himself has accepted the fact that the assessee owns number of properties and has leased them out. In the preceding assessment years the Assessing Officer has accepted the income derived from the leasing out of properties as ‘Business Income’ of the assessee. Though principle of res judicata is not strictly applicable to income tax proceedings, each assessment year being an independent unit, however, rule of consistency cannot also be ignored. Once both the parties have accepted certain position relating to a particular issue over a period of time, the same cannot be disturbed in a subsequent year unless there are material differences in fact. - Taxable as business income - Decided in favor of assessee. Additions u/s 40A(2)(b) - excessive payment of salary to the directors - AO found that no such remuneration was paid in the earlier assessment years. He, therefore, called upon the assessee to justify the reasonableness of payment made to them. - Held that:- The CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee allowed assessee’s claim on the reasoning that the leasing out of I.T Park and other properties were a business activity of the assessee and the Directors had undertaken all the activities themselves and the remuneration paid to them was commensurate with their inputs. He further observed that the disallowance at the hands of the company would amount to double taxation as Directors have offered the amount received by them as income in the return of income filed by them. - No disallowance - Decided against the revenue. Genuineness of payment made as commission towards providing services to the company - reasonable amount - Held that:- It is also found that the assessee has duly deducted tax at source u/s. 194J of the Act on the payment made to the said party. Thus, from the material on record, it is established that the payment made by the assessee to the concerned party was against services actually rendered. That being the case, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer cannot be sustained. - Decided against the revenue.
|