TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (8) TMI 137
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... P. State Electricity Board was taxable for the assessment years 1983-84, and 1984-85 and 1985-86 and specially in view of the circumstances of this particular case? 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the income from Nainital property and from furniture and fixtures therein as leased out to the State Bank of India for use of the training centre was income from house property and not income from business or income from other sources, as alleged by the assessee?" The reference relates to the assessment years 1983-85, 1984-85 and 1985-86. Briefly stated the facts giving rise of the present reference in so far as the first question is concerned are as follows: The appli....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Civil Judge, Lucknow. Dissatisfied by that order, the Electricity Board took up the matter in appeal before this court, but that appeal was dismissed by the order dated March 12, 1981. Thereafter the Electricity Board took up the matter before the Supreme Court, which by order dated March 5, 1982, granted special leave for filing the appeal. The said appeal was pending disposal at the time of making the reference. The decree passed in favour of the applicant was put into execution and the sum of Rs. 68 lakh odd, belonging to the Electricity Board and lying with the State Bank of India, Ashok Marg Branch, Lucknow, was attached. However, the Electricity Board moved the Supreme Court for stay. The hon'ble Supreme Court granted stay for 50 per....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Assessing Officer was confirmed. In the second appeal before the Tribunal, again the same pleas were raised but were not accepted by the Tribunal as well and the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was upheld. So far as the second question is concerned which relates to the income from the Nainital property for the assessment year 1985-86, the facts are as follows: The applicant owned a property at Nainital and it was being used as a guest house. Some of the portions of the alleged building were rented and the income from those portions was returned by the applicant as income from house property in earlier years. Afterwards, the applicant wanted to convert the building into a hotel and with that in view the assistance fr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... rent of the building along with its fixtures and furnishings used by the State Bank of India. The said order of the Assessing Officer was also confirmed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in the first appeal filed by the applicant. The same order was also confirmed in the second appeal by the Tribunal. We have heard Sri R. R. Kapoor, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri A. N. Mahajan, learned standjng counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is liable to pay 6 per cent. interest on the amount of compensation paid to it under the orders of the hon'ble Supreme Court in the event the Electricity Board won and, therefore, the amount which represented 6 per cent. ....