TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (2) TMI 349
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r Sources" instead of "Business Income" without appreciating facts and circumstances of the case. Thus, the addition of Rs. 12,07,252/- is unjustified and the same may be deleted. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the compensation received by the Appellant for letting of terrace and hall constitutes the business activity of the Appellant. Hence, treating the "Business Income" amounting to Rs. 12,07,252/- as "Income from Other Sources" is not at all justified and the same may be deleted. 3. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in disallowing the business expenditure of Rs. 18,57,571/- without appreciating the fact that the same have been incurred in the normal course of carrying out business activity of the Appellant. Thus, the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... income received from terrace antenna and hall booking under the head "Income from Other Sources". He further disallowed the expenses claimed by the assessee company. Aggrieved by the same, assessee is in appeal before me. 4. Upon assessee's appeal learned CIT(A) affirmed the action of the Assessing Officer by holding as under: "I have carefully considered the arguments and submissions filed during the appellate proceedings by the AR of the assessee company and also gone through the assessment order. I had also gone through the orders of the preceding years and relevant case laws. Following important facts emerges on analysis: a) The Assessee company has purchased the property subject to the tenancy and the same was in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not contain any continuous/ organized activity which can have element of carrying of Business. f) The claim under "Income from Business Income" has been surreptitiously made in order to get the benefit of the allowance of Business Expenditure and reduce the taxable receipt. g) As far alternative claim of allowance of expenditure against the Income from other Sources is concerned, it has to be allowed as per the Section 57(iii) of the Act. In other words, the expenditure has to be incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of earning such income which is not the case here. In view of the above, I do not find any reason to deviate from the conclusion of the AO and his categorization of compensation received fro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the entire receipt of the assessee consists of rentals for letting out of property. In these circumstances, I find that Hon'ble Apex court decision in the case Rayala Corporation (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT (supra) duly covers the issue in favour of the assessee. In the said decision Hon'ble Apex court has expounded as under" "9. Upon hearing the learned counsel and going through the judgments cited by the learned counsel, we are of the view that the law laid down by this court in the case of Chennai Properties (supra) shows the correct position of law and looking at the facts of the case in question, the case on hand is squarely covered by the said judgment. 10. Submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the Revenue is t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rkar & Associates vs. ACIT (supra) has been rendered on different set of facts. In the said decision the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: "Reliance placed by the appellant on the judgments of this Court in Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. (supra) and Rayala Corporation (P) Ltd. (supra) would be of no avail. In Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. (supra) where one of us (Sikri J.) was a part of the Bench found that the entire income of the appellant was through letting out of the two properties it owned and there was no other income of the assessee except the income from letting out of the said properties, which was the business of the assessee. On those facts, this Court came to the conclusion that judgment of this C....