TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (6) TMI 390
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-11 vide order dated 30-12-2010, 23-12-2011, 23-11-2012 u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter 'the Act'). 2. The first common issue in all three appeals of the assessee is against the order of CIT(A) confirming the action of the AO in assessing the income from self-owned property situated at MBC Tower, TTK Road, Chennai under the head "Profits and Gains of Business or Profession" as against returned by the assessee as rental income under the head "Income Form House Property". The facts and circumstances are exactly identical in all the three years and the grounds raised are also identical. Hence, we will take the facts from AY 2008-09 and will decide the issue. The grounds raised by assessee in AY 2008-09 reads as under: - "....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant has shown rental income of Rs. 5,27,76,383/- in r/o the various premises (at MBC Towers, Chennai) given to various parties as per the Annexure 'A' enclosed. It has also shown the amenities charges from these various parties amounting to Rs. 1,69,86,453/- as per details in the Annexure 'A' During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant was asked to produce the fixed assets register in r/o furniture and fixtures, Air Conditioners, electrical installations provided to the various parties as mentioned in Annexure 'A' enclosed. However, the appellant has failed to produce the fixed assets register. The appellant has also failed to produce the list of furniture and fixture, ACs, electrical installations pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....usiness receipts have been bifurcated as rental income (to be shown as income from House property and claiming statutory allowance) and amenity charges to avoid the rightful tax due to the exchequer. 3.4 Accordingly, the AO has rightly held that the total receipts from self-owned property situated at MBC Towers, TTK Road, Chennai is business receipts. Aggrieved, now assessee is in second appeal before tribunal. 5. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. Admittedly, the assessee is the owner of the property situated at MBC Tower TTK road, Chennai. The assessee has declared rental income from this house property under the head "Income from House Property". The Assessee consistently of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Section 22 are applicable the property is to be assessed as income from house property. 6. Hon'ble Supreme Court has also validated the decision of Shambu Investment Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (2003) 263 ITR 143 (SC) and CIT vs. Kanak Investment Pvt. Ltd. [1974] 95 ITR 419 (Calcutta) and also Karani Properties Limited vs. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 547 (SC). Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court has also affirmed the decision of Sultan Bros. (P) Ltd. v. CIT, (1964) 5 SCR 807. They have further distinguished the case law of Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd 373 ITR 673 (SC) and Rayala Corporation (P) Ltd. For this Hon'ble Supreme Court relied on the Karanpura Development Co. Ltd. v. CIT, (1962) 44 ITR 362 and the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case....