TMI Blog2012 (2) TMI 681X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2,39,903/- as incomes from business and profession. It was noted by the AO that the property bearing No. G-701 and 702 on which rental income was received was in the name of the assessee company and had been let out at annual rent of ₹ 8,79,158/- on which the assessee had paid municipal taxes of ₹ 26,030/-. The AO computed the rental income as income from house property after allowing the taxes paid and the allowable deduction u/s 24(a) of the Act. On appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. At the time of hearing before us, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue is covered against the assessee by the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Shambhu Investment P. Ltd. Vs. CIT, [2003] 263 ITR 143. 5. After hearing the learned DR and perusing the record as well as the orders of the authorities below, we find that the issue under consideration is squarely covered against the assessee by the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Shambhu Investment P. Ltd. Vs. CIT (supra) wherein the Hon ble Supreme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... est on fixed deposit with the bank cannot be construed as business income and does not qualify for deduction u/s 80 HHC of the Act. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the said decision of the Hon ble Delhi High Court, we find no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) and the same is hereby upheld. Accordingly, this ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 11. Ground No. 3 is relating to set off of unabsorbed depreciation and brought forward losses. 12. This ground is consequential to ground Nos. 2 3 wherein we have held that the income received from the house property and the interest received on the deposits kept with the bank as income from other sources . In view of the said finding, this ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 13. Ground No. 4 is relating to the rental income received by the assessee from Shiv Saga property amounting to ₹ 29,16,242/-. 14. The AO noted that the assessee had received rental income of ₹ 29,16,241/- from one, M/s Chordia Fashions Pvt. ltd. which was not reflected by the assessee in the return of income. It was claimed by the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... J.M. Shah, therefore, the assessee is only collecting rent on behalf of Mr. J.M. shah and the same is not the income of the assessee. It is submitted that Mr. J.M. Shah is paying taxes on the said rental income received by the assessee on behalf of Mr. J.M. Shah. It is further submitted that there was an objection from the society, therefore, the sale was not executed but the real owner is Mr. J.M. Shah and not the assessee. The learned counsel for the assessee relied upon the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of R.B. Jodha Mal Kuthiala Vs. CIT, 82 ITR 570(SC) and in the case of CIT Vs. Podar Cement Pvt. Ltd. and Others, 226 ITR 625. 17. On the other hand, the learned DR has strongly objected the submissions made by the assessee and submitted that merely on the basis of sale agreement, it cannot be said that the rights in the property has been transferred and even the assessee had entered leave licence agreement with M/s Chordia Fashions Pvt. ltd. dt. 13/11/2003. He further submitted that the assessee M/s M.J. Exports Pvt. Ltd. continued to be one of the three licensors and as per the said agreement, the assessee was receiving rent. He, therefore, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the property. It failed to do so. The authorities below have rightly held that the asesssee is the owner of the property and the rental income has to be taxed in the assessee s hands. The case law relied upon the by the in the case of R.B. Jodha Mal Kuthiala Vs. CIT(supra), wherein the Hon ble Supreme Court held that to tax the income of the assessee from the house property the assessee must be a person who can exercise the rights of the owner, not on behalf of the owner but in his own right. Therefore, this case is not applicable to the facts of the case under consideration as there is nothing on record to show that the assessee is not the owner of the property. In the case of CIT Vs. Podar Cement Pvt. Ltd. and Others,(supra), the Hon ble Supreme Court held that a property cannot be owned by two persons, each one having independent and exclusive right over it. Hence, for the purpose of section 9 of the 1922 Act, the owner must be that person who can exercise the rights of the owner, not behalf of the owner but in his own right . This decision is also not applicable to the facts of the case in hand for the simple reason that there is nothing on record to show that the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
