TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal clarifies rental income classification, upholds CIT(A)'s TDS disallowance exception.</h1> <h3>The Asstt. Commissioner of Income-tax Circle XV Chennai Versus M/s. Eskay Designs</h3> The Asstt. Commissioner of Income-tax Circle XV Chennai Versus M/s. Eskay Designs - TMI Issues:1. Assessment of rental income on property taken on lease by the assessee and sub-letting it on a commercial basis under different heads of income.2. Disallowance for non-deduction of TDS under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act.Analysis:Issue 1: Assessment of rental income on property taken on lease and sub-letting:The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order directing the Assessing Officer to assess the rental income on property taken on lease by the assessee and sub-letting it on a commercial basis under the head 'income from house property' instead of 'business income.' The Assessing Officer treated a portion of the income as business income due to the nature of the activities. The CIT(A) relied on a tribunal order from a previous year with similar facts and ruled in favor of the assessee. The Tribunal found no distinction in facts between the current and previous assessment years and directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the case for appropriate computation of income under the head 'house property.' The Tribunal restored this ground to the Assessing Officer for further assessment.Issue 2: Disallowance for non-deduction of TDS under section 40(a)(ia):The Assessing Officer disallowed a sum for non-deduction of TDS by the assessee. The CIT(A) referred to a case law and held that the disallowance should apply only to amounts payable by a specific date, not those already paid. The Revenue contended that this distinction was no longer valid based on recent High Court decisions. The Tribunal examined conflicting judgments from different High Courts and applied the rule of Judicial Precedence to uphold the view favorable to the assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision and dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia).In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed the Revenue's appeal for statistical purposes, emphasizing the importance of following judicial precedence in resolving conflicting interpretations of tax laws.
TaxTMI 