News Update

India, China hold fresh dialogue for complete disengagement on Western borders: MEAThakur says India is prepared for 2036 OlympicsCBDT substitutes Form in ITR-5EV Revolution: Lessons for India to learn from US and China!London court green-signals auction of luxury apartment of fugitive Nirav ModiGovt consults RBI; finalises borrowing plan for first half of FY 2024-25Gadkari says Farmers’ protest is politically-motivatedVP calls upon women entrepreneurs to be 'Vocal for Local'America offers USD 10 mn bounty for information on ‘Blackcat’ hackers after UnitedHealth gets hitI-T- The order of the ITSC can only be reopened in cases of fraud or misrepresentation: HC8 persons including Hezbollah militants killed in Israeli strike on LebanonI-T - Income so surrendered on account of investment in excess stock during course of survey cannot be brought to tax under deeming provisions of section 69B: ITATMacron pillories EU-South Africa trade deal; calls it ‘really bad’ in BrazilI-T-Power of revision need not be exercised where facts do not reveal any lack of enquiry by AO into relevant issue & when twin requirements of order being erroneous as well as prejudicial to Revenue's interests, are not satisfied: ITATThailand’s Lower House okays Bill to legitimise same-sex marriageI-T -Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed where an assessee claims deduction u/s 80P while being ineligible therefor, but being under the bona fide impression of being eligible for such benefit : ITATYellen warns China against clean energy dumpingCus - Enhancement of declared value of imported goods is not tenable, where Department adduces no material to show how the enhanced value was computed & where no cogent rationale is made out for rejecting declared value: CESTATMilky Way’s central black hole - Twisted magnetic field observedCus - Assessee has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that goods in question imported under air way bills/bills of entry were in fact filed by him and hence the only natural corollary available to Revenue is confiscation of same: CESTATSmall investors help Trump Media’s valuation skyrocket to USD 13 billionST - When the facts are in the knowledge of department subsequent SCN alleging suppression cannot be issued and entire demand was found beyond normal period of limitation: CESTATFM Nirmala Sitharaman declines to contest LS elections as she has no fundsST - Tripura State Rifles not required to pay Service Tax under heading of Security Services, as it is is not engaged in business of providing security services: CESTATJustice Ritu Raj Awasthi joins as Judicial member of LokpalCX - Clandestine removal alleged based on consumption of raw inputs and heightened electricity usage - Tax demands based on third party statements but without permitting cross examination of deponents; case remanded to allow this exercise: CESTAT
 
Income tax - Whether income from letting out property is to be treated as business income merely because property is commercial in nature and rental is exorbitantly high - NO: ITAT

By TIOL News Service

NEW DELHI, APR 15, 2014: THE issue before the bench is - Whether income from letting out of property can be treated as business income and not as income from house property just because rental income was too high and the property was commercial in nature. NO is the Tribunal's answer.

Facts of the case

The
AO noted that the assessee had disclosed income from house property of Rs. 104,887,980/- and claimed deduction u/s. 24(1) of 30%. The AO held that the rental income was treated as business income and deduction claim of Rs. 31466394/- u/s. 24(1) was not allowable. The CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs. 3,14,66,394/- by treating income from business of letting out of property as rental income and allowed deduction u/s. 24(a).

The CIT(A) gave part relief of Rs. 1,07,238/- u/s. 57(iii) under the head income from other sources.

On Appeal before the Tribunal the DR submitted that the CIT(A) had not examined the partnership deed of the assessee. He had not examined the object clause of the assessee. The DR further submitted that assessee had itself accepted that the property was a commercial property hence; the income in this regard cannot be treated as income from house property. The AR submitted that as per the Income Tax Act the income from house property has to be taxed as income from house property irrespective of the fact that the property was commercial property or otherwise. The AR submitted that there is no distinction between commercial property or other property in the Income Tax Act. The AR further submitted that the AO’s presumption that rental income was very high can not be the reason.

Having heard the parties, the Tribunal held that,

++ the AO’s observation that rental income is too high is not at all a reason to treat the income as income from business. AO has not made out any case that assessee has been providing services and hence, the claim of rental income is to be disallowed. The Income Tax Act does not make any distinction between commercial property and other property for the classification of income from house property;

++ on the issue of the CIT(A) granting part relief of Rs. 1,07,238/- u/s. 57(iii) under the head income from other sources, it is not the case that the expenses have been found to be bogus or the concerned vouchers were lacking. There is no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) in this regard.

(See 2014-TIOL-175-ITAT-DEL)


POST YOUR COMMENTS
   

AR not Afar by SK Rahman

TIOL Tube Latest

Shri Shailendra Kumar, Trustee, TIOL Trust, giving welcome speech at TIOL Awards 2023




Shri M C Joshi, Former Chairman, CBDT




Address by Shri Buggana Rajendranath, Hon'ble Finance Minister of Andhra Pradesh at TIOL Awards 2023