TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (2) TMI 165
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g the monetary limit to Rs. 10,00,000/- for not filing appeals before the Tribunal. He further submitted that as the tax effect involved in the instant Departmental appeal is less than Rs. 10,00,000/-, the extant appeal is not maintainable. The ld. D.R., although supported the order of the Assessing Officer, but could not controvert the fact that tax effect involved in this appeal is less than Rs. 10,00,000/-. 3. From para 10 of the above Circular it is palpable that the Instruction is applicable to the pending appeals also with retrospective effect and there is a clear-cut direction to the Department to withdraw or not press such appeals filed before the ITAT wherein tax effect is less than Rs. 10,00,000/-. Going by the prescription of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessee, as the case may be, on receipt of notice that an appeal against the order of .... the Commissioner (Appeals) has been preferred under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) or sub-section (2A) by the other party, may, notwithstanding that he may not have appealed against such order or any part thereof; within thirty days of the receipt of the notice, file a memorandum of cross-objections, verified in the prescribed manner, against any part of the order of .... the Commissioner (Appeals), and such memorandum shall be disposed of by the Appellate Tribunal as if it were an appeal presented within the time specified in sub-section (3) or sub-section (3A).' 7. A bare perusal of the above provision transpires that the AO or the assessee (he....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... memorandum of cross-objections filed under sub-section (4) of section 253 shall be registered and numbered as an appeal and all the rules, so far as may be, shall apply to such appeal. This shows that a cross objection is treated in no way different from a separate appeal by the tribunal. 8. The language of section 253(4) makes it abundantly vivid that the scope of a Cross objection is not restricted only to the points decided against the appealing party, but, also extends to the points decided against the other side. The mandate of the provision is quite vast and is unlike the prescription of rule 27 of the ITAT Rules, which is limited in its realm empowering the respondent to support the impugned order by providing that: `The respondent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eclared by the assessee. 11. Briefly stated, the facts apropos this issue are that the assessee let out its building along with furniture & fixtures and electrical installations and offered the rental income so received under the head 'Income from house property.' The AO held such income to be chargeable to tax under the head 'Income from other sources', which view came to be echoed in the first appeal. The assessee is aggrieved against the treatment given to such rental income as falling under the head 'Income from other sources.' 12. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. There is no dispute on the fact that the lease rent received by the assessee was a composite rent of building, furniture & fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eparable from the letting of the said machinery, plant or furniture, the income from such letting, if it is not chargeable to income-tax under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession"; 14. When we read section 22 in juxtaposition to section 56(2) of the Act, it is manifested that whereas the former section covers income only from land or building appurtenant thereto, the latter covers within its ambit income from inseparable letting of building, machinery, plant or furniture, etc. As, admittedly, the assessee earned rental income from letting out of building, furniture & fixtures and electrical installations in a composite manner which are inseparable from each other, such income specifically falls under the head 'Income from....