9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 72X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eipts from ITC Ltd. amounting to Rs. 48,49,721/- is the income under the head "Income from Business and profession" as against "Income from other sources" held by the AO; iv) holding that the income from interest on FDRs amounting to Rs. 26,41,454/- is assessable as business income instead of income from other sources held by the AO; v) holding that income from sarovar complex amounting to Rs. 3,25,790/- is assessable as business income instead of income from House property held by the AO; vi) restricting the disallowance out of business expenses to Rs. 7,12,020/- against disallowance of Rs. 30,60,101/- made by the AO." ITA No. 262//JP/2017 (Ground of Revenue's appeal): " i) allowing the appeal of the assessee holding that the status of the assessee should be deemed as individual instead of HUF considered by the AO; ii) allowing the assessee exemption u/s 10(19A) on the rental income received from Ummed Bhawan amounting to Rs. 3,78,708/- and 50,61,933/- compensation receivable; iii) holding that receipts from ITC Ltd. amounting to Rs. 50,11,783/- is the income under the head "Income from Business and profession" as against "Income from other sources" held by the AO; iv) ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le First of Sec. 2(Part 1) of I.T.Act 1961 as it is allowable in the status as of "Individual", as the appellant age is more than 65 Years old. The same deserves to be allowed." 3. At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that all the issues as raised in the various grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue for both the years are covered by the decisions of the Tribunal for the earlier years. It was further submitted that there is no change in the facts and circumstances of the case and the earlier orders of the Tribunal may kindly be followed. 4. On the other hand, the ld. DR fairly stated that almost of the issues are covered by the order of the Tribunal for earlier years. However, he placed reliance on the order of the Assessing Officer for the impunged assessment years. 5. The relevant findings of the CIT(A) for AY 2012-13 are reproduced as under:- "As regards Ground of appeal no. 1, it is observed that my predecessor CIT(A), while deciding the appeal in the case of the appellate for A.Y. 2011-12 (the immediately preceding year of the present appeal) vide order in appeal no. 579/13-14 dt. 27/06/2014 had held following orders of earlier years & order of ITAT Jaip ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the issue has been decided in favour of the appellant referring to similar orders in earlier years as well. Following the same line of decision, I am of the opinion that net interest income of Rs. 26,41,454/- from Bank deposits should be assessed as income from business and not income from other sources. This ground of appeal is allowed." "As regards Ground of appeal no. 7, as per the order of my predecessor CIT(A) referred in ground no. 6 above, on this issue in the earlier assessment year I hold that the income from commercial property is to be assessed as business income & not as income from property. As a corollary, the appellant would not be entitled for deduction @ 30% u/s 24 of the I.T. Act. This ground of appeal is partly allowed." "As regards Ground of appeal no. 8 related to disallowance of expenses out of the claim of Rs. 35,60,101/- incurred for business purposes & earning of income, the issue has also been examined in earlier years by ITAT Jaipur (order dt. 30.07.2007) as my predecessor CIT(A) vide above referred appeal order (see ground no. 6) following the same line of decision as in earlier years, I hold that a more reasonable approach while making the disa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... findings given by the Coordinate Bench on this issue. Accordingly, the Revenue's appeal on this ground is dismissed." "10. Ground No. 3 is against treating the receipts from ITC Limited amounting to Rs. 39,59,066/- as business income by the Assessing Officer. The assessee has received Rs. 39,59,066/- from ITC Limited and shown this income in the return as business income, which was treated by the Assessing Officer "income from other sources" as held in past by the department. The assessee challenged this issue before the learned CIT(A), who has accepted the assessee's income under the head business and profession on the ground that in past the issue is covered by the ITAT order in assessee's own case. Both the parties have accepted the fact before us that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee in preceding orders by various decisions of the ITAT, therefore, we do not find any reason to differ with the order of the Coordinate Bench in assessees own case in preceding year. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal of the Revenue on this ground." "12. The learned D.R. argued that this issue is covered in favour of the revenue and in past the interest income on FDR has been he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the question arises that where part of the residential palace is found to be in occupation of the tenant and remaining is in occupation of the Ruler for his residence, whether in such circumstances, the Ruler is entitled to claim exemption for the whole of his residential palace under Section 10(19A) or such exemption would confine only to that portion of the palace which is in his actual occupation. In other words, whether the exemption would cease to apply to let out portion thereby subjecting the income derived from let out portion to payment of income-tax in the hands of the Ruler. 27. This very question was examined by the M.P. High Court in the case of Bharatchandra Banjdeo (supra) in detail. It was held that no reliance could be placed on Section 5(iii) of the Wealth Tax Act while construing Section 10(19A) for the reason that the language employed in Section 5(iii) is not identical with the language of Section 10(19A) of the I.T. Act. Their Lordships distinguished the decision of Delhi High Court rendered in the case of Mohd. Ali Khan v. CIT [1983] 140 ITR 948/12 Taxman 330, which arose under the Wealth Tax Act. It was held that even if the Ruler had let out the portion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under the Act then provisions dealing with grant of exemption should be construed liberally because the exemptions are for the benefit of the assessee. 38. In the light of these reasonings, we are of the considered opinion that the view taken by the M.P. High Court in Bharatchandra Banjdeo's case (supra) and the Rajasthan High Court in H.H. Maharao Bhim Singhji's case (supra) is a correct view. 43. In the light of foregoing discussion, in our considered opinion, the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the High Court in the impugned order including the view taken by the Rajasthan High Court in Maharaval Lakshmansingh's case (supra) does not lay down correct principle of law whereas the view taken by the M.P. High Court in cases of Bharatchandra Bhanjdeo (supra), CIT v. Bharatchandra Bhanjdev [1989] 176 ITR 380 (MP) and H.H. Maharao Bhim Singhji (supra) lays down correct principle of law." 9. In light of above, following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred supra and the consistent view taken by the Coordinate Benches as we have noticed in AY 2010-11 and 2011-12 supra, we affirm the order and the findings of the ld CIT(A). 10. In the result, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
