TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 698X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In-fact, when we see the Supplementary Agreement dated 23rd September, 2009, the parties have agreed that the assessee will provide the fixtures in the said premises lease by IBM at a much lower rate than to the estimated cost of ₹ 1,500/-. Thus, in-fact the assessee has disclosed all the materials before the AO and it is not an evasion of tax. The case laws referred by the DR also not relevant as the same are distinguishable in facts. In case of Shambhu Investment there is no separate charges included in the agreement, but in the present case there are two separate agreements and each terms have been expressed in the agreement. Thus, the CIT(A) has rightly considered the income from Fit-Out Hire Charges as business income as held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in treating the income from fit-out hire charges as business income without appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to submit the details of fixtures as stated to be as Annexure-1, to the fit out hire agreement dated 18.01.2008. 3. As per tax audit report in Form 3CD, the assessee s nature of business is IT ITES related services. In the computation of income, the assessee has shown income from house property, business, capital gains and other sources. Return of income was electronically filed on 29/09/2011 declaring total income of ₹ 8,21,26,950/- which was processed u/s 143(1). The case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) dated 26/09/2012 was issued an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the CIT(A) erred in treating the income from fit out higher charges as business income ignoring the fact that on such income TDS has been deducted at 10% which is applicable for the payment made on account of rent u/s 194 and no any contractual payment for services for which the prescribed rate for TDS is 2% u/s 194C. The Ld. DR submitted that the assessee failed to submit the details of fixtures as stated to be as annexure 1 to the Fit Out Hire Agreement dated 18/1/2008. The Ld. DR relied upon the decision of the Hon ble Calcutta High Court in case of CIT Vs. Shambhu Investment Pvt. Ltd. 249 ITR 47 as well as Kerala High Court decision 177 Taxman 478. The Ld. DR relied upon the Tribunal decision in case of Suguna Kapoor Vs. ACIT, ITA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y a separate legal document. Both these agreements does not have any motive as regards the evasion of the tax aspect. In-fact, when we see the Supplementary Agreement dated 23rd September, 2009, the parties have agreed that the assessee will provide the fixtures in the said premises lease by IBM at a much lower rate than to the estimated cost of ₹ 1,500/-. Thus, in-fact the assessee has disclosed all the materials before the Assessing Officer and it is not an evasion of tax. The case laws referred by the Ld. DR also not relevant as the same are distinguishable in facts. In case of Shambhu Investment there is no separate charges included in the agreement, but in the present case there are two separate agreements and each terms have bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
