TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 1392X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch has been claimed out of the income received from providing space and facilities for hosting functions for HSBC Bank. The Assessing Officer held that the Assessee had received hire charges from cinema hall which cannot be treated as business income, therefore, such an expenditure cannot be allowed. On this issue, consistent with the view taken in the earlier year, we also direct the Assessing Officer to decide this issue afresh in line with the directions given by the Tribunal in the earlier year after giving reasonable opportunity to the Assessee. Thus, ground no. 3 is treated as allowed for statistical purpose. - ITA NO. 4227/MUM/2014, ITA NO. 4583/MUM/2014 - - - Dated:- 20-1-2016 - SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For the Appellant : Shri Haresh G. Buch Ms. Monika Agarwal For the Respondent : Shri Rajesh Ojha (DR) ORDER PER AMIT SHUKLA, JM : The aforesaid cross appeals have been filed by the Assessee as well as by the Revenue against the impugned order dt. 23.4.2014, passed by the CIT(A)-32, Mumbai for the quantum of assessment passed u/s 143(3) for the A.Y 2010-11. 2. We will first take up the Assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... space and had entered into two separate agreements, one being Indenture of Lease and other being Amenities Agreement with the lessee, HSBC Bank. As per the amenities agreement, monthly charges of ₹ 53,16,700/- for each of the 36 months was to be received by the Assessee. The Assessee had not bifurcated the rental income and the receipts from amenities charges as separate source, but had treated the entire income under the head income from house property . The Assessing Officer held that the amenities charges received would be taxed as income from other sources . Before the Ld. CIT(A) the Assessee had made a very detailed submission relying upon the various decisions including that of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Shambhu Investment (P) Ltd. reported in 263 ITR 143 (SC) and the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. J.K. Investors Ltd. reported in (2012) 211 Taxman 383 (Bom). However, CIT(A) following the appellate order for the A.Y 2009-10 held that the amenities charges received as per the amenities agreement would be taxed as income from other sources . In the A.Y 2009-10, the Tribunal has also upheld the stand of the Revenue that the sai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wards repairs and maintenance of the said property and also to pay municipal taxes. It appears that by separately charging in the guise of amenities charges, the assessee wanted to reduce the liability to property tax which is based on the rental income of the property. The cases relied upon by the ld. Counsel are totally misplaced and not matching the facts of the case in hand. Considering the fact in totality, we do not find any error in treating the amenity charges under the head income from other sources . Ground No. 1 is accordingly dismissed. Since similar facts are permeating in this year also, arising out of the same agreement, therefore, no different view can be taken and following the rule of consistency and judicial precedent, we decide this issue against the Assessee by holding that the amenities charges received by the Assessee is to be assessed under the head income from other sources . Accordingly, ground no. 1 raised by the Assessee is treated as dismissed. 8. As regards ground no. 2, wherein the Assessee has raised the alternative plea that the municipal taxes paid should be allowed against income from other sources instead of income from house proper ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en a thoughtful consideration to the rival submission and have carefully perused the orders of the authorities below. As discussed elsewhere, we have held that the amenities charges have to be taxed under the head of income from other sources'. Section 57(iii) shows that any other expenditure not been in the nature of capital expenditure lead out of expanded wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning income which is taxed under the head income from other sources'. In our considered opinion, payment of municipal taxes cannot be said to be let out or expanded wholly and exclusively for the purpose of earning amenity charges, as these municipal taxes are directly related to the letting out of the property, the rental income from which is taxed is under the head income from house property . We, therefore, find that the finding of the ld. CIT(A), in allowing the municipal taxes deductable as erroneous. We set aside the findings of the ld.CIT(A) and confirm that of the A.O. Ground Nos. 1 and 2 are accordingly allowed. Thus, consistent with the view taken by the Tribunal in the Assessee s own case for the earlier years, we hold that the municipal taxes ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
