9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1813X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) grossly erred in upholding rent income as income from business and disallowance made by the learned A.O of deduction of Rs. 36,00,000/- claimed u/s 24(a) of the Act. The appellant prays that the rent income should be treated as income from house property and addition of Rs. 36,00,000/- with respect to deduction claimed u/s 24(a) may please be deleted. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee-company is engaged in the business of Boat pleasure, Cruisine and letting out of premises. The assessee filed its return of income for relevant AY on 07.09.2010 declaring total income at Rs. 54,60,000/-. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 22.03. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Commercial Bank Ltd. Vs. CIT [1975] 32 ITR 688 (SC). 2. East India Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd. [1961] 42 ITR 49 (SC). 3. Karanpura Development Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT [1962] 44 ITR 362(SC). 4. Sultan Brothers (P) Ltd. Vs CIT [1964] 51 ITR 353 (SC). 5. Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. vs. CIT [2015] 373 ITR 673. 6. Abdul Qayume Vs. CIT [1990] 50 Taxman 171 (All). 7. Profile Consultancy Services (P) Ltd. Vs CIT [2016] 161 296 (Mumbai-Trib.). 4. On the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue supported the order of authorities below and argued that the assessee consistently was showing "Business Income" from letting out of the property. The assessee was receiving the rental income by showing rental income as student accommod ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly and contended that during last few years the income was treated under the head 'business income' in the return of income. It was further contended that the predecessor of AO pointed out/ asked the assessee why such income should not be treated as income from house property. And the assessee to avoid the litigation with the department has changed the head of income. The contention of the assessee was not accepted by AO holding that the assessee had been receiving rental income from student accommodation and there is no change. The AO further concluded that the assessee claimed deduction of Rs. 36 lakhs, however only a sum of Rs. 76,085/- was spent on repair and maintenance and treated the rental income as business income on the principal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
