TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 155X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecial facilities and amenities for software companies, be earning rental income as income from house property. The Tribunal not only relied upon an earlier decision of Elnet Technologies Ltd. [ 2012 (11) TMI 671 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] but also having considered all these aspects in great detail, the Division Bench of this Court to which one of us (VKJ) was a member, in M/s. PSTS Heavy Lift and Shift Ltd. had clearly held that where the main business of the company is to earn rental income as its business income, the income would be taxable under the head Income entitling the petitioner Assessee to have the deductions of notional expenses like depreciation and special deductions like Section 80IA - Decided against revenue. - T.C.A.No.9 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Revenue :- 1. Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case the Tribunal was right in holding that the income derived from letting out of property to tenant for the purpose of running technological park is income from business and not income from house property? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the assessee is entitled to deduction u/s.80IA (4)(iii) on rental income and lease rent income of the industrial park which is mean for I.T. industries? 4. The findings of the Tribunal, in this regard, are quoted as under: 10. We also find that an identical issue came up before the Hon'ble jurisidictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Elnet Technologies Ltd. in Tax Case Appeal Nos.391 392 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e direct the Assessing Officer to treat interest income and other income only under the head income from other sources and allow deduction under section 80lA on rest of the incomes, i.e. rent from premises, operation and maintenance income, revenue sharing income, common facilities such as rent from auditorium and rent from others. 5. The issues raised in this appeal are already covered by an earlier decision of this Court rendered in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 4 v. M/s. Khivraj Motors Pvt. Ltd. [TCA.Nos.314 and 315 of 2017 dated 27.7.2020], wherein, this Court following the ratio laid down in M/s. PSTS Heavy Lift and Shift Ltd., Wavoo Mansion, 2nd Floor 48, (Old No.39), Rajaji Salai vs. M/s. CeeDeeYes IT Parks Pvt. L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hough the name of the company continue to remain as M/s. Khivraj Motors Pvt. Ltd. The burden of the argument of the learned counsel for the Revenue, perhaps emanated from only the name of the company, forgetting that the main business activity of the company from its motor business had been diversified into developing a special kinds of property and earning lease rental income as its main business income. By no stretch of imagination, could a software park developed with the special facilities and amenities for software companies, be earning rental income as income from house property. The Tribunal not only relied upon an earlier decision of Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Elnet Technologies Ltd. [(2012) 213 Taxman 129], but ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
