Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2018 (10) TMI 437

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nd operating the mobile towers / antenna for the purpose of providing mobile telecom services. The terrace of the building cannot be considered as distinct and separate but certainly is a part of the house property. Therefore, letting–out space on the terrace of the house property for installation and operation of mobile tower / antenna certainly amounts to letting–out a part of the house property itself. That being the case, the observation of the Assessing Officer that the terrace cannot be considered as house property is unacceptable. CIT(Appeals)'s reference that the rental income received by the assessee is in the nature of compensation for providing services and facility to cellular operators, it is relevant to observe, the Dep .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... turn of income filed by the assessee noticed that in the relevant previous year, the assessee has derived rental income from mobile towers which has been offered as income from house property. Further, against such income assessee has claimed deduction under section 24(a) of the Act. Being of the view that the assessee has not let out any house premises, the Assessing Officer called upon the assessee to justify its claim of offering rental income from mobile tower under the head income from house property. In response, it was submitted by the assessee that the society is the owner of the property where it has permitted the mobile service providers to install their mobile towers / antenna. It was submitted, the assessee has rented out its .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... age solution / in building solution for providing uninterrupted cellular coverage inside the premises of the assessee. He observed, as per the terms of the agreement, the cellular operators have been specifically denied any right as a tenant, sub tenant, joint or co tenant, lessee or sub lessee. He observed, the assessee has not been paid the rent for letting out the terrace rather the assessee has been compensated for permitting the cellular operator to install, use, operate the cellular base station on the top terrace of the building for providing services to cellular operators. Thus, ultimately the learned Commissioner (Appeals) concluded that the income received by the assessee from the mobile companies is a compensation for providin .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... It is also a fact that the assessee has offered such rental income as income from house property and has claimed deduction under section 24(a) of the Act. The Assessing Officer has rejected assessee s claim and treated the rental income as income from other sources basically for three reasons. Firstly, the assessee is not owner of the building; secondly, the terrace cannot be considered as house property and thirdly, annual letting value of the terrace is not ascertainable. Whereas, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the decision of the Assessing Officer on the reasoning that the income received by the assessee is in the nature of compensation received for providing facilities and services to cellular operators on the terrace .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ived by the assessee from the cellular operators/mobile companies is on account of letting out space on the terrace for installation and operation of antennas and nothing else. That being the case, the rental income received by the assessee from such letting out has to be treated as income from house property. The decisions relied upon by the learned Authorised Representative also support this view. Further, the contention of the learned Authorised Representative that in no other assessment year, assessee s claim of such income as house property has been disturbed by the Assessing Officer has not been controverted by the Departmental. Therefore, there being no material difference in fact, applying rule of consistency also, assessee s cla .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates