TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (7) TMI 540
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Tribunal is right in deleting addition of Rs. 1,55,59,877/= made on account of business income treated by the Assessing Officer as income from house property and deleting addition of Rs. 13,46,107/= made on account of sale of canteen coupons ?" (B) "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Tribunal is justified in ruling that the receipt on account of letting out of furnished premises is business income merely on the ground that the assessee has carried out modification to his premises to suit the requirement of tenant and no other activity has ever been carried out by the assessee ?" (C) "Whether on the facts and in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ond. The Assessing Officer was of the opinion that the income generated in the process would be the assessee's income from house property and not business income. He was of the opinion that the assessee company was supplying building and such other infrastructural facilities for which purpose, the assessee would be receiving guaranteed amount in the nature of rent, which would be revised from time to time. The assessee Company was not entitled to any share in the profit nor would bear any loss in the business. On such basis, the Assessing Officer made the addition. Assessee carried the matter in appeal. CIT (A) deleted the addition, making following observations :- "I have considered the submissions as well as judicial pronouncements cit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y laws. All the above facts support the intention of the appellant of exploiting its infrastructure commercially which distinguishes it from a normal owner of property who had intention to earn rental income by letting it out. I have also gone through the judgments relied upon by the Assessing Officer and the appellant. The crucial test laid down by all the courts is that mere fact that the income is attached to immovable property, cannot be sole criteria for assessment of such income as income from House property. It is necessary to find out as to what is the primary object of the assessee while exploiting the property. It is necessary to find out as to what is the primary object of the assessee while exploiting the property. If it is f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ss. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the income of the appellant is to be assessed as Income under the head 'Business ' and not income from 'house property. The similar addition had been deleted by the CIT (A) for A.Y 2007-08. The learned CIT (A)has followed his predecessor's orders for AYs 2005-06 and 2006-07 and allowed the appeal in favor of the assessee." Revenue thereupon approached the Tribunal. Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal principally relying on its own decision in case of ACIT v. Vardhman Infrastructure Private Limited. Learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that the case of Vardhman Infrastructure Private Limited (Supra) was not carried in appeal in view low tax effect. In the pres....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee was carrying on activities in an organized manner and such purpose on daily basis, was employing a large number of workers. More significantly, the user had no right of occupancy. They had only limited access to the use of space for the purpose of business and that too in respect of certain activities. At all times, the premises remained fully under the control of the assessee. We notice that under some what similar background, when the Tribunal in case of Saptarishi Services had held the income to be his business income and not from the house property, this Court had dismissed the appeal holding that no question of law arises. In such case, the assessee had taken certain piece of land on lease and thereupon put up construction of a c....