9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 320X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... havan for M/s.Subbaraya Aiyar Padmanabhan ORDER (Judgment of the Court was delivered by R. Sudhakar,J.) The above Tax Case (Appeals) filed by the Revenue as against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal were admitted by this Court on the following substantial question of law: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... istics services provided by the assessee, in paragraph Nos.15 and 16 came to the conclusion that the nature of receipts is not rental receipt, but business income. The Tribunal further found that the assessee company had approached its business by making use of the godown in a novel way, which is not merely a case of letting out on rent. In paragraph 18 of the order, the Tribunal clearly held that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der rental receipt under the head "property" is not justified as there is no fiduciary relationship of either landlord and tenant or licensor and licencee. For the above foregoing reasons, we set aside the orders of the authorities below and allow the claim of the assessee." 5. Aggrieved by this order of the Tribunal, the Revenue is before this Court. 6. Heard learned Standing Counsel appearing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n that it is a case of warehousing business and, therefore, would fall only under the head 'Business Income'. 9. In view of the well considered reasoning given by the Tribunal, we find no reason to differ with the findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal, which reasoning is fully justified in the facts of the present case. This Court finds no good reason to differ with the said findings ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
