TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 753X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... easing multiplex, cineplex, cinema hall, theater, shop, shopping mall etc., sub-licence by it under the head profit and gain of business or profession of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the CIT (A) as well as ITAT have rightly set aside the order of A.O. The Apex Court in case of Raj Dadarkar and Associates [ 2017 (5) TMI 586 - SUPREME COURT] has held that ITAT being a last forum insofar as factual determination is concerned, these findings have attained finality. No material has been produced even before us to show how the aforesaid findings are perverse. The order passed by A.O. nowhere shows that the entire income or substantial income of the assessee was from letting out of the properties, which is admittedly not the principal business activity of the assessee. Therefore, we do not find any perversity in the findings recorded by the ITAT as well as the CIT (A) and also do not find any substantial question of law involve in these appeals. - Hon'ble Shri Justice Vivek Rusia And Hon'ble Shri Justice Gajendra Singh For the Appellant : Ms. Veena Mandlik Advocate For the Respondent : None Present ORDER The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Indore has filed the appeal ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment under Section 143 (3) of the Income Tax Act was completed by Assessing Officer (AO) on 29.03.2014 at Rs. 4,71,42,454/- (rupees four crore seventy one lakh forty two thousand four hundred fifty four only). Income Tax Appeal No.218 of 2023 6. The Assessee Company, M/s. M.P. Entertainment Developers Private Limited filed e-return of Income Tax for the Assessment Year 2014-15 on 19.11.2014 declaring net loss at minus Rs. 3,46,49,041/- (rupees three crore forty six lakh forty nine thousand forty one only). The case of the assessee came under the scrutiny through Computer Assisted Security Selection (CASS) and assessment under Section 143 (3) of the Income Tax Act was completed by Assessing Officer (AO) on 30.12.2016 at Rs. 16,41,60,940/- (rupees sixteen crore forty one lakh sixty thousand nine hundred forty only). 7. In all the Assessment Years, the Income Tax Assessing Officer recorded common findings. The respondent Assessee Company constructed a shopping-cum- entertainment Mall in the name and style as Malhar Megha Mall and declared the nature of business as to carry on the business of purchase for development of the land, estates structure and rented income from immovabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the CIT (A) and dismissed the appeals. Hence, these appeals before this Court. 10. Ms. Veena Mandlik, learned counsel appearing for the appellant Department submitted that the CIT (A) as well as ITAT both were not justified in considering the nature of the receipts i.e. rental and wrongly treated it under the head of income from the business and profession , and not as income from the house property . The ITAT was not justified in confirming the order passed by the CIT (A), without appreciating the judgment passed in case of Shamboo Investment Private Limited v. CIT reported in ( 2003) 263 ITR 143 (SC) . 11. During the arguments, Ms. Veena Mandlik has placed reliance on a judgment passed in case of Raj Dadarkar and Associates v. ACIT-CC-46 reported in (2017) 14 SCC 476 in which the judgment passed in case of Chennai Properties and Investment Limited, Chennai v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-III, Tamil Nadu reported in (2015) 14 SCC 793 and Rayala Corporation Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (2016) 15 SCC 201 have been held inapplicable in the matter building constructed by Maharashtra Housing Development Authority and shown the income f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owned a building in the name of Mall and getting it furnished and thereafter let out to various persons with all furniture, fixtures, light or air conditioner for being used as table space by executing a rent agreement. 16. In the case of Sultan Brothers Private Limited v. CIT reported in (1964) 5 SCR 807 , the Apex Court held that each case has to be looked at from the businessman s point of view to find out whether the letting was the doing of business or exploitation of the property by the owner, it it not possible to say that particular activity is a business because it is concerned with an asset with which the trade is commonly carried on. In case of Chennai Properties and Investments Limited (supra), the Apex Court found that the entire income of the appellant was through letting out of the two properties it owned and there was no other income of the assessee except the income from letting out the said properties, which was the business of the assessee. 17. The same situation was in the case of Rayala Corporation Private Limited (supra). The Apex Court while holding that the income shall be treated as income from the house property , rested its decision in the context of mai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
