TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (2) TMI 159
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er or not deduction under section 24(a) @ 30% of the annual value is available in respect of computation of income under the head 'income from house property' in respect of income from renting of terrace for installation of mobile antenna. 3, Briefly stated, the relevant material facts of the case are as follow. The assessee before us, an individual, had received sums aggregating to Rs. 2,91,723 from Bharati Airtel Limited and Idea Cellular Limited, towards renting out its terrace for the use by these companies as places where as, mobile communication service providers, the companies had installed antennas. The assessee had also claimed a deduction @ 30%, under section 24(a), from the rental income so received. However, this claim for de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t from the installation of mobile antennae which has been erected on the top at the building would not be taxable under the head "income from property" as the rent was only for providing space for installation of the mobile antennae on the top of building, and the same cannot be treated as part of the building nor can it be treated as land appurtenant thereto. Therefore, such income is taxable under the head income from other sources. The Assessing Officer has thus rightly treated the income from installation of mobile antennae as income from other sources and denied the deduction u/s 24(a) of the IT Act, 1961 claimed by the appellant. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer's action is upheld 4. The assessee is not satisfied and is in furthe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee for such a deduction. The basis on which learned CIT(A) has upheld that taxability under the head 'income from other sources' and thus reject the claim of deduction under section 24(a), is his understanding of the law laid down by Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Mukerjee Estates Pvt Ltd Vs. CIT [244 ITR 1 (2000)]. 7. We find that so far as Hon'ble Calcutta High Court's judgment in the case of Mukerjee Estates Pvt Ltd (supra) is concerned, it is wholly misplaced inasmuch as it was a case in which the Tribunal had given a categorical finding that the assessee had "let out the hoardings" and in which the assessee's claim that he had let out the roof for advertisement and hoarding remained to be unsubstantiated inasmuch as when....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....remained uncontroverted before Hon'ble Calcutta High Court as well. It was based on this uncontroverted finding that Hon'ble Calcutta High Court reached the conclusion that the income in question is taxable as income from other sources. This decision, therefore, cannot even be an authority for the proposition that the income from renting out the roof for placing the hoardings can be treated as income from other sources. Quite to the contrary to this interpretation, the observations made in this decision unambiguously show that when it can be demonstrated, as Their Lordships wanted the assessee to demonstrate in that case, that the consideration received is rent for letting out the roof rather than the hoardings, the legal position will be m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e from house property". Learned counsel for the assessee has filed copies of leaves and licence agreements with the Bharti Airtel Limited and the Idea Cellular Limited. In both of these agreements, it is specifically mentioned that the rent is for use of "roof and terrace" area (not more than 900 sq ft in the case of Bharti Airtel Ltd and approx 800 sq ft in the case of Idea Cellular Limited). The agreement with Bharti Airtel Ltd mentions that the assessee "permits the licences to install, establish, maintain and work on the licenced premises, inter alia, including the following - (a) transmission tower/pole, with multiple antennas; (b) pre-fabricated equipment shelter; (c) D G Set upto 25 KVA: and (d) two earthing connection and laying of ....