9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 999X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rought forward business loss of Rs. 7,47,711/- of A.Y.2010-11 & 2013-14 which is claimed by the appellant. 4. "The appellant prays that for these and other reasons it is submitted that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the above grounds be set aside and that of the A.O. be restored." 5. "The appellant craves leave to amend add, amend or any of the grounds of appeal." Ground No. 1 & 2 2. These ground raised by the revenue are inter connected and inter related and relates to challenging the order of Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,09,27,464/- house property income determined by the AO against the income/loss shown as business income by the assessee, therefore we thought it fit to dispose of the same by this common order. 3. Ld. AR appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted before us that these grounds are covered by the order of Hon'ble ITAT in ITA No. 1180/Mum2017 for AY 2013-14 in assessee's own case, wherein the identical ground raised in the present appeal has already been decided on merits. 4. On the other hand, Ld. DR fairly agreed to the contention of Ld. AR that the issue is covered in favour of assessee. 5. We have heard both the parties and we have als ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 25,01,615/- which were shown as business income. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer had made additions by treating the business income declared by the assessee to be in the nature of income from house property. The counsel of the assessee has vehemently opposed the additions the Assessing Officer and submitted that these be deleted. It is noted that assessed company is in the business of building and leasing premises of special nature as per Ihe requirements of the clients. The Company has installed special equipment and premises is designed to suit clients needs. It is not simply letting out a structure to earn rental income out of it is noted that on similar facts Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd. vs CIT [2015] 55 Taxmann.com 456 (SC) has held that where in terms of memorandum of association, main object of the assessee company was to acquire properties and earn income by letting the same, said income was to be brought to tax as business income and not as income from house property. It is noted that facts of the present case are identical to the facts of the case of Chennai Properties and Investmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the Hon‟ble ITAT in the assessee‟s own case for the A.Y. 10-11 in ITA. No.261/M/2016 dated 08.11.2016. Before going further we deemed it necessary to advert the finding of the CIT(A) on record: - "The second, third and fourth grounds of appeal are of similar nature and are taken together as these pertain to head of income which the liability to pay tax arises. I have carefully considered the facts of the case, the submissions of the appellant and order of the Assessing Officer. In this connection it is noted that the assessee ITA No. 1180/M/2017 A.Y.2013-14 6 company had given its two industrial buildings Indiplex-I and Indiplex-II on lease and had received license fee of Rs. 1,99,73,433/- and service charges of Rs. 1,33,90,233/- which were shown as business income. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer had made additions by treating the business income declared by the assessee to be in the nature of income from house property. The counsel of the assessee has vehemently opposed the additions made the Assessing Officer and submitted that these be deleted. It is noted that assessee company is in the business of building and leasing prem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espect of these two properties:- " Income from House property : On perusal of details filed, it is noticed that the Kashimira project consists of two Industrial buildings viz. lndiplexI and Idiplex-ll. In respect of Indiplex-l. the assesses have entered into leave and license agreement on 02 May 2009 with we Eagle Burgmann India Pvt. Ltd for granting license to the licensee to conduct and operate its business from the said Industrial building. Further, the assesses has entered into service agreement with this Eagle Burgmann India Pvt. Ltd for maintenance and security of the Indiplex-l. In the P&L No the assessee has credited leave & license fee received of Rs. 5.82.016 land service charges of Rs. 21,24,776 under the head Business income. For the Industrial building Indiplex-Il the assessee has entered into leave and license agreement with M/s Microtact Hydralic (India) P. Ltd on 18" December. 2009." The assessee also filed submissions before us, which reads as under:- 'The entire premises were developed and constructed by our client to be used as industrial estate. The structures of the building were designed and constructed with the intention of always using them as industrial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd. Vs. CIT (2015) 56 Taxmen.com 456 (SC). The CIT (A) also allowed in favour of assessee by observing as under:- "7. I have carefully considered the facts of the case, the submissions of the appellant and order of the Assessing Officer. In this connection it is noted that the assessee company had" given its two industrial buildings Indiplex-I and Indiplex-II on lease and had received licence feel of Rs. - 25,82,016/and service charges of . Rs. 21,24,776/- which were shown as business income. During the curse of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer had made additions by treating the business income declared by the assessee to be in the nature of income from house property. The counsel of the assessee has vehemently opposed the additions made the Assessing Officer and submitted that these be deleted. It is noted that assessee company is in the business of building and leasing premises of special nature as per the requirements of the clients. The Company has installed special equipment and premises is designed to suit clients needs. It is not simply letting out a structure to earn rental income out of it. It is noted that on similar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orities and ITAT as mentioned above in assessee's own case, we find that the identical issue had already been decided by the ITAT in ITA No. 1180/Mum2017 for AY 2013-14, 1771/Mum/16 for AY 2012-13 and 261/Mum/16 for AY 2010-11 in assessee's own case. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Coordinate Benches of ITAT and in order to maintain judicial consistency, we apply the same findings in the present case which are applicable mutatis mutandis in the present case. Resultantly, these grounds raised by the revenue stands dismissed. Ground No. 3. 7. This ground raised by the revenue relates to challenging the order of Ld. CIT(A) in disallowing the set off of brought forward business loss of Rs. 7,47,711/- of A.Y.2010-11 & 2013-14 which is claimed by the assessee. 8. We have heard the counsels for both the parties at length and we have also perused the material placed on record as well as the orders passed by revenue authorities. We find that while deciding this ground, the AO had held that since assessee had not carried out any other business activity except for earning rental income and service charge, which according to AO was treated as income under the head 'Inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
