TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (3) TMI 579
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re were six appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, out of which five were by the Revenue and one by the assessee. 2. Following are the questions of law raised by the assessee in Tax Case (Appeal)No.35 of 2014. 1. Whether the Tribunal was right in not adjudicating the specific issue raised by the Revenue questioning the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that the income from letting out the property should be treated as business income or income from property for the purpose of invoking Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 2. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the matter should be remanded to the files of the Assessing Officer to examine the nature of activity and its income derived as incidenta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r providing food and beverages to the persons, who were occupying such rooms. When the assessee was questioned about the nature of receipts, the assessee took the contention that the income from these activities was not business income but income from the property. The assessee placed reliance on the decision of this Court reported in (2008) 300 ITR 365 (Mad) [CIT vs. Shri Rao Baghadur ADK Dharmaraja Educational Charity Trust] as well as (2002)121 Taxmann 717, Punjab and Haryana High Court, apart from (1980)121 ITR 1(SC) [Additional CIT vs. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association] on the aspect of utilization of the income for charitable purpose and hence exempted from Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The contention of the ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mbers and non-members could not be treated as a business activity. The guests are permitted to avail the facilities of the organisation and therefore, the so-called members, who availed the services of the Society through the introduction of members as the guests of the members, who are treated as temporary members and the same could not constitute business activity. Thus, aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), directing the Assessing Officer to grant the benefit under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Revenue went on appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 4. On a consideration of the merits of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that the question as to whether the assessee was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f its order that the question as to whether the assessee was earning this income as incidental to the objects of the Society for the purpose of determining this case and in the event of the Assessing Officer was to hold the view that it is incidental to the object of the assessee, the consequence flowing thereon would be in terms of the order of the Commissioner as the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) himself has felt that this is an income from house property. Thus, having gone through the order, in order to avoid future controversy arising, we agree with learned counsel submission. Hence, while confirming the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal remanding the matter back to the Assessing Officer to examine the issue afresh, we h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e order. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal rejected the petition holding that there was no mistake apparent on record, which needed rectification. Since the said order was only based on the remand order to consider whether the income is from letting out of the property is incidental to the objects of the Association or altogether a separate activity, nothing further need to be seen thereon. Thus aggrieved by this the assessee has filed TC(A) No.36 of 2014, raising the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the Tribunal was right in not allowing the miscellaneous petition filed under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 2. Whether the Tribunal was right in not adjudicating the specific issue raised by the Revenue questio....