Need Tally
for Clients?

Contact Us! Here

  Tally Auditor

License (Renewal)
  Tally Gold

License Renewal

  Tally Silver

License Renewal
  Tally Silver

New Licence
  Tally Gold

New Licence
 
Open DEMAT Account with in 24 Hrs and start investing now!
« From the Courts »
Open DEMAT Account in 24 hrs
 Inordinate delay in income tax appeal hearings
 Income Tax leviable on Tuition Fee in the Year of Rendering of Services: ITAT
 Supreme Court invoked its power under Article 142 of Constitution to validate notices issued under section 148 as notices issued under section 148A. However the same shall be subject to amended provisions of section 149.
 ITAT refuses to stay tax demand on former owner of Raw Pressery brand
 Bombay HC sets aside rejection of refund claims by GST authorities
 [Income Tax Act] Faceless Assessment Scheme does not take away right to personal hearing: Delhi High Court
 Rajasthan High Court directs GST Authority to Unblock Input Tax Credit availed in Electronic Credit Ledger
 Sebi-taxman fight over service tax dues reaches Supreme Court
 Delhi High Court Seeks Status Report from Centre for Appointments of Chairperson & Members in Adjudicating Authority Under PMLA
 Delhi High Court allows Income Tax Exemption to Charitable Society running Printing Press and uses Profit so generated for Charitable Purposes
 ITAT accepts Lease Income as Business Income as Business Investments were mostly in nature of Properties

M/s. Basics IT Solutions Pvt. Ltd. G-2, Nizamuddin West, New Delhi-110013 Vs. ACIT Circle – 4 (1) New Delhi
September, 13th 2019
        IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
                  DELHI BENCH `A', NEW DELHI

BEFORE SH. N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
                        AND
     MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER

                        ITA No.5764/Del/2019
                       Assessment Year: 2015-16
     M/s. Basics IT Solutions         ACIT
     Pvt. Ltd. G-2, Nizamuddin Vs Circle ­ 4 (1)
     West, New Delhi-110013           New Delhi
     PAN No.AACCB5118K
     (APPELLANT)                      (RESPONDENT)


     Appellant by                  Sh. Rajiv Saxena, Advocate
                                   Sh. Shyam Sunder, AR
     Respondent by                 Sh. P. S. Thuingaleng, SR. DR

     Date of hearing:              09/09/2019
     Date of Pronouncement:        13/09/2019

                              ORDER

PER N. K. BILLAIYA, AM:


       This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of
the    CIT(A)-2,     New   Delhi    dated    30.04.2019    pertaining   to
A. Y. 2015-16.


2.     The sole issue in the present case to be decided is whether
on the facts and circumstances of the case, income from renting
out property is to be assessed under the head `Income from
Business' or Income from House Property'.
                                    2




3.    Briefly stated that the facts of the case are that the assesses
company was formed and registered with ROC, NCT of Delhi and
Haryana on 25th day of November, 2004 with one of the main
objects `to carry on all kind of business, buy, sell, let out, hire
and repair in relation to any immovable property and its
maintenance services.


4.    Apart from this, in the objects incidental or ancillary to the
attainment of the main objects. There was specific object at S.
No.22 as under :
            `to lease', let out on hire, pledge, hypotheciate, or
otherwise dispose off the whole or any part or parts of the
undertaking of the company or any land, business property,
rights or assets or any kind of the company or any share of
interest bearing respectively, in such manner and in such
consideration as the company may think fit.







5.    During the year the assessee has leased out following
premises :-


     Chart Giving Details of Premises along-with Facilities to Various
                      Software/Business Concerns
                                              3

             Name of the Tenant       Premises & Facilities leased
      Sr.
      No.
      1. M/s MetaOption Software Pvt. 1. Furnished office to computer software with
          Ltd.                           furniture & fixture of company (Super Area
                                         7000 sq. ft. & carpet area 5500 sq flat 6th Floor.
                                         2. 24-hour power supply.
                                         3. Centrally air conditioning.
                                         4. Managing parking facilities
                                         5. Drinking water supply and 24-hour water
                                         supply.
                                         6. 24-hour Internet facilities.

      2. DA Vision Global Enterprises                                      1. Furnished
         Limited                                                              office    to
                                                                              computer
                                                                              software
                                                                              with
                                                                              furniture &
      3. M/s Arkadin Conferindia Pvt.                                         fixture of
         Ltd.                         1. Furnished office to computer software with
                                      furniture & fixture of company (Super Area
                                      7,500 sq. ft. & carpet area - at 4th Floor.
                                      2. Power Backup
                                      3. Managing parking facilities
      4. M/s Sharp Business Systems 1. Furnished office to computer software with
         (India) Pvt. Ltd.            furniture & fixture of company (Super Area
                                      7,500 sq. ft. & carpet area - at 63rd Floor.
                                      2. Power Backup
                                      3. Power Load
                                      4. Centrally air conditioning.
                                      5. Managing parking facilities




6.   The income of the assessee was shown in its profit and loss
account as under :-


OTHER INCOMES :
Electricity & DG Charges                    1,90,700.00                      569,417.00
Maintenance Charges                         3,537,295.00                     2,555,000.00
Interest of Income Tax                            36,094.00
Refund
                                        4


Rental Income                         9,102,000.00              5,810,000.00
                                      13,766,089.00             8,934,417.00


7.    During the course of the assessment proceedings the
Assessing Officer was of the opinion that the income of the
assessee from rent has to be treated as income from house
property. After discussing certain judicial decisions the Assessing
Officer completed the assessment by treating the rent of
Rs.9,102,000/- as income from house property and after allowing
standard deduction, addition of Rs.63,71,400/- was made.


8.    The assessee carried the matter before the CIT(A) but
without any success. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal by
observing as under :-


      "6.5  Apart from this, there is no mention of renting of immovable
      property or maintenance services in any other objects throughout the
      memorandum and articles of association. Reference about renting
      added to an entirely different clause of system design and
      information technology appears ambiguous. How and when this
      short reference has been added to an entirely different clause
      dealing with entirely different object, is not clear as the same was
      not available before the AO. Even the intention of adding a short
      reference to a different clause is not clear. In fact, the appellant has
      done no business in systems or information technology which is
      mentioned throughout its memorandum and articles of association.




6.6    Therefore, the appellant's ground suffers from ambiguity. I do not
see any reason to interfere with the decision of the AO. Even the inclusion
of interest on IT refund of Rs. 36,095/- as business income is not
allowable. These grounds are, therefore, dismissed as devoid of merit."
                                    5




9.   Before us the Ld. Counsel for the assessee drew our
attention to the memorandum of association of the company and
pointed out that the main object read with other objects clearly
shows that the business of the assessee was to let out and lease
the property. On such objects strong reliance was placed on the
decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chennai
Properties and Investments Ltd. 373 ITR 673.


10. Per contra the DR strongly supported the findings of the
CIT(A).


11. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the orders of
the authorities below. The main objects and other object of the
company have been mentioned elsewhere.                   In the light of the
main object and the other object we do not find any merit in the
observations   of   the   CIT(A).       We   fail   to     understand   the
apprehension shown by the CIT(A) in respect of clause 22 for
which he observed that "short reference has been added to
entirely different clause dealing with entirely different object, is
not clear as the same was not available before the AO" when the
Assessing Officer himself has categorically mentioned that he has
examined the memorandum of association of the assessee
company.
                                       6


12. Reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Chennai Properties and Investment (supra) is well taken.


13. The relevant findings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court read as
under :-


  6.   Before we refer to the Constitution Bench judgment in the case of
Sultan Brothers (P.) Ltd. (supra), we would be well advised to discuss
the law laid down authoritatively and succinctly by this Court in
'Karanpura Development Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1962] 44 ITR 362 (SC). That
was also a case where the company, which was the assessee, was
formed with the object, inter alia, of acquiring and disposing of the
underground coal mining rights in certain coal fields and it had
restricted its activities to acquiring coal mining leases over large areas,
developing them as coal fields and then sub-leasing them to collieries
and other companies. Thus, in the said case, the leasing out of the coal
fields to the collieries and other companies was the business of the
assessee. The income which was received from letting out of those
mining leases was shown as business income. Department took the
position that it is to be treated as income from the house property. It
would be thus, clear that in similar circumstances, identical issue arose
before the Court. This Court first discussed the scheme of the Income
Tax Act and particularly six heads under which income can be
categorised / classified. It was pointed out that before income, profits
or gains can be brought to computation, they have to be assigned to one
or the other head. These heads are in a j sense exclusive of one another
and income which falls within one head cannot be assigned to, or taxed
under, another head. Thereafter, the Court pointed out that the deciding
factor is not the ownership of land or leases but the nature of the
activity of the assessee and the nature of the operations in relation to
them. It was highlighted and stressed that the objects of the company
                                       7







must also be kept in view to interpret the activities. In support of the
aforesaid proposition, number of judgments of other jurisdictions, i.e.
Privy Counsel, House of Lords in England and US Courts were taken
note of. The position in law, ultimately, is summed up in the following
words: --

     "As has been already pointed out in connection with the other two
     cases where there is a letting out of premises and collection of
     rents the assessment on property basis may be correct but not so,
     where the letting or sub-letting is part of a trading operation. The
     diving line is difficult to find; but in the case of a company with its
     professed objects and the manner of its activities and the nature
     of its dealings with its property, it is possible to say on which side
     the operations fall and to what head the income is to be
     assigned."

            9.     After applying the aforesaid principle to the facts,
            which were there before the Court, it came to the conclusion
            that income had to be treated as income from business and
            not as income from house property. We are of the opinion
            that the aforesaid judgment in Karanpura Development Co.
            Ltd's case (supra) squarely applies to the facts of the
            present case.

     No doubt in Sultan Brothers (P.) Ltd.'s case (supra),
     Constitution Bench judgment of his Court has clarified that
     merely an entry in the object clause showing a particular
     object would not be the determinative factor to arrive at an
     conclusion whether the income is to be treated as income
     from business and such a question would depend upon the
     circumstances of each case, viz., whether a particular
     business is letting or not. This is so stated in the following
     words: --
     "We think each case has to be looked at from a
                                        8


      businessman's point of view to find out whether the letting
      was the doing of a business or the exploitation of his
      property by an owner. We do not further think that a thing
      can by its very nature be a commercial asset. A commercial
      asset is only an asset used in a business and nothing else,
      and business may be carried on with practically all things.
      Therefore, it is not possible to say that a particular activity
      is business because it is concerned with an asset with
      which trade is commonly carried on. We find nothing in the
      cases referred, to support the proposition that certain
      assets are commercial assets in their very nature."


11.    We are conscious of the aforesaid dicta laid down in the
Constitution Bench judgment. It is for this reason, we have, at the
beginning of this judgment, stated the circumstances of the
present case from which we arrive at irresistible conclusion that
in this case, letting of the properties is in fact is the business of
the assessee. The assessee therefore, rightly disclosed the income
under the Head Income from Business. It cannot be treated as
'income from the house property. We, accordingly, allow this
appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court and restore
that of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. No orders as to costs.


14. Finding parity in the facts of the case in hand with the facts
of the case decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and
respectfully following the same we direct the Assessing Officer to
treat the rental income as income from business.                        However,
income from interest on income tax refund is excluded from the
business income. With these observations the appeal filed by the
assessee is allowed.
                                             9




15. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.


       Order pronounced in the open court on 13.09.2019.




    Sd/-                                                           Sd/-
(SUCHITRA KAMBLE)                                          (N. K. BILLAIYA)
 JUDICIAL MEMBER                                         ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
*NEHA*
Date:-13 .09.2019
Copy forwarded to:
1.     Appellant
2.     Respondent
3.     CIT
4.     CIT(Appeals)
5.     DR: ITAT
                                                         ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
                                                              ITAT NEW DELHI

          Date of dictation                                        11.09.2019
          Date on which the typed draft is placed before the       12.09.2019
          dictating Member
          Date on which the typed draft is placed before the       13.09.2019
          Other member
          Date on which the approved draft comes to the            13.09.2019
          Sr.PS/PS
          Date on which the fair order is placed before the        13.09.2019
          Dictating Member for Pronouncement
          Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.       13.09.2019
          PS/ PS
          Date on which the final order is uploaded on the         13.09.2019
          website of ITAT
          Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk           13.09.2019
          Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk.
          The date on which file goes to the Assistant Registrar
          for signature on the order
          Date of dispatch of the Order

Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2024 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Ritz Consulting