TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 393X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f association also holds no force now after the aforesaid decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/S CHENNAI PROPERTIES & INVESTMENTS LTD VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [2015 (5) TMI 46 - SUPREME COURT]. In view of this, Ld. CIT(A) has rightly held that income from warehouse has to be assessed under the head income from house property not under the head income from business and profession. The computation made by AO under the head income from house property determining the net loss of ₹ 1,51,524/- was, therefore, rightly upheld and confirmed by Ld. CIT(A), which does not need any interference on my part, hence, I uphold the action of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and reject the grounds raised by the Assessee. - ITA No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt has neither dissented with the ratio of judgement in case of Chennai Properties and Investment Ltd. and Rayala Corporation Pvt Ltd. nor it has overruled such ratio in case of Raj Dadarakar and Associates (Supra). 4. Without prejudice to ground no. 2 3 above, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not adjudicating upon disallowance of expenses amounting to ₹ 1,65,22,093 claimed in the profit loss account contested in second para of ground no. 1 of the appeal in as much as the said expense consist of expenses amounting to ₹ 3,33,663/- incurred for business purpose and an amount of ₹ 43,553/- being depreciation on the assets other than building, rent from which has been ordered to be taxed under the head Income from House P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd interest expenses u/s 24(b) of the Act. Since the receipts from warehouse was computed by AO under the head of income from house property, the business expenses claimed by the assessee were further disallowed by him and net income under the head business was computed at ₹ 30,72,890/- and assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 vide order dated 26.09.2016. Against the said assessment order dated 26.9.2016, Assessee appealed before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide his impugned order dated 09.11.2017 has dismissed the appeal of the Assessee. Aggrieved by the impugned order, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that revenue authorities erred in treating income from leasing o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... axed under the head Income from House Property . In view of above, he requested that the appeal of the assessee may be allowed. 4. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and stated he has passed a well reasoned order, which does not need any interference on our part. 5. I have heard both the parties and perused the records especially the impugned order. I note that AO has discussed the facts in detail and the relevant clauses of the lease deed and also mentioned that the said warehouse was already rented to present tenant (Tupperware) by earlier owner from whom assessee has purchased this building in this year. As per AO, the dominant object of the rent agreement is only to enjoy rentand nothing more. On th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wner of the building or land appurtenant thereto. It has been further held by Hon'ble Court that merely because there is an entry in the objects clause of the business showing a particular object that would not be the determinative factor to arrive at a conclusion that the income is to be treated as income from business. In the case of the assesseee, after purchasing the warehouse from earlier owner, it has become the sole owner of the property. Though the ownership has been changed on record but the nature of usage of the warehouse remains the same. Before purchasing the warehouse by assessee, the earlier owner was receiving the income from warehouse as rental income and after change of ownership, the nature of payments made by occupie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
