TMI Blog1986 (1) TMI 63X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpany in letting out its factory godowns, when not in use, as in the past and on contractual basis, constitutes functioning of the company within its objects as provided for in the memorandum and articles of association of the company ? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the income out of the letting out of the company's godowns from time to time is income from business, i.e., exploitation of commercial assets of the company or income from house property ? (iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case emerging from the evidence and material on record, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the assessee company after 1974 had completely stopped its business activity with no prospect wha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of law to the High Court for its opinion. The Tribunal, however, declined the application holding that no question of law arose out of its appellate order. This necessitated the petitioner-company to file the instant petition under section 256(2) of the Act. It may be noticed that in all the above questions, the sole controversy centres round the point as to whether or not the aforementioned rental income of the petitioner-company was assessable under the head " Income from house property " and not as " Income from business ". The Incometax Officer in his order dated January 30, 1980 (annexure P-3), held that during the assessment year 1974-75, the petitioner-company had sold away some of its ginning machines with a view to close down it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... annexure P-5). Thereafter, the petitioner-company applied under section 256(1) of the Act to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal requiring it to draw up a statement of the case and to refer four of the abovementioned five questions, said to be of law arising out of its order (annexure P-5), for the opinion of the High Court. Question No. (iii) mentioned above was not among the questions sought to be referred. The Tribunal, vide order annexure P-7, declined to make a reference, on the ground that no question of law arose from its order dated November 24, 1980 (annexure P-5), and what has been held constitutes findings of fact. It was held by the Supreme Court in CEPT v. Shri Lakshmi Silk Mills Limited [1951] 20 ITR 451, that the yield of i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
