1984 (5) TMI 100

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e as income from business. (ii) deleting the disallowance of Rs. 26,041 made by the ITO out of the claim of interest; and (iii) deleting the disallowance of Rs. 19,819 out of electricity expenses paid by the assessee on behalf of the lease. For the sake of convenient, since both the years involved two common grounds, the appeals are disposed of by a common order. 2. Regarding ground No. 1 for both the years, the facts are that the assessee firm by means of an agreement dt. 29th June, 1976 made Auto Glass Industries, Jaipur, a partnership concern as lessees, to carry on all the activities which the firm had been carrying on hitherto in the premises and using all the facilities of plant and machinery etc., of the assessee firm for....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e only. The ld. AR mentioned that he has nothing more to add than what he had already stated before the CIT (a) that he relied upon the various decision placed before the CIT (A). After hearing both the parties, we find lot of force in the submission of ld. AR and in view of the various judgments cited before the CIT (A) which have been given below, we agree with the view expressed by the ld. CIT (A) and hold that the income which the assessee had received as lease money is assessable only under the head income from business: 1. CEPT vs. Shri laxmi Silk Mills Ltd. (1951) 20 ITR 451 (SC) 2. CIT vs. Naional Mills Co. Ltd. (1958) 34 ITR 155 (Bom) 3. Lakshmi Industries (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (1961) 41 ITR 645 (Mad) 4. Coringa Co. Ltd. vs.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s due to business losses which had not been rebutted by the Department CIT (A) was fully justified in directing the ITO to allow the same. After hearing both the parties and since there being no dispute to the fact that the debit balance was due to business losses only and not due to personal withdrawals of the partners. We, therefore, uphold the order of the CIT (A). This disposes of common ground Nos. 1 & 2 for asst. yrs. 1977-78 & 1979-80. 4. Regarding ground No. 3 for 1979-80 wherein the Department was aggrieved by the CIT (A) order in directing to allow the electricity expenses of Rs. 19,819 from the business income of the assessee, the ITO observes in his order that electricity expenses of Rs. 19,819 were paid by the assessee from ....