TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (6) TMI 177
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hennai in I.T.A. Nos. 2005 and 2007 (Mds)/2002 dated June 9, 2003. On February 4, 2004, this court admitted T.C. (A) No. 75 of 2004 and formulated the following substantial questions of law: "1. Whether the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the income derived from the commercial complex is to be treated as income from property? 2. Having found that the commercial complex is a business asset of the appellant, whether the Tribunal went wrong in holding that income from exploitation of a business asset is income from property?" On April 15, 2004, this court admitted T.C. (A) No. 176 of 2004 and formulated the following substantial questions of law: "1. Whether the Tribunal is right in law in passing the imp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ducive conduct of business of the occupants and to provide such other services such as common reception, telephone booth, generator etc. as may be required by the occupants and agreed upon by both the parties from time to time. There is also a service-cum-lease agreement entered by the assessee and the occupants on April 1, 1997. The relevant assessment year is 1999-2000 and the corresponding accounting year ended on March 31, 1999. The assessee filed a return of income on March 22, 2000, admitting an income of Rs. 3,850 under the head "Business". It is seen from the profit and loss account accompanying the return that the entire receipts were only from rentals. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the rental income has to be treated ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....udes providing occupants, services in the nature of providing security, supervisor, sweeper etc., providing lighting in all common areas, water and sanitation facilities and maintain the building, the common areas, the overhead tank, sump etc. for the peaceful, smooth, effective and conducive conduct of business of the occupants and to provide such other services such as common reception, telephone booth, generator etc. as may be required by the occupants and agreed upon by both the parties from time to time. There is also a service-cum-lease agreement entered by the assessee and the occupants on April 1, 1997. The relevant assessment year is 1999-2000 and the corresponding accounting year ended on March 31, 1999. The assessee filed a retur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... submitted that the assessees constructed business centres and let out the same and continued providing its services, as business activity. The assessee firms were constituted only for the purpose of carrying on their activity. Hence the receipts constitute only business receipts. Hence the order passed by the authorities below are wrong, illegal, without basis and justification. It is further submitted that there is enough proof and material evidence to show that the assessees provide services to the occupants and there are service agreements entered into by the assessees with their occupants. There is no dispute regarding providing of services. It is only because of non-filing the sufficient proof before the authorities below, the authori....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mount should not be assessed under the head "Income from house property" on the ground that certain portion of the amount is related to services provided as per the agreements which are independent ones. The rental receipts shows only the consolidated amount, instead of apportioning it into different heads. The Revenue should have apportioned the amounts and such apportioned amounts should be assessed under the head "Income from business" or "Income from other sources". In the present cases, there are service-cum-lease agreements entered into on April 1, 1997, by the assessees with their respective occupants. For convenient purpose, we reproduce below the clauses contained in one of the tax cases, namely T.C. No. 75 of 2004: "1. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r month in the case of T.C. No. 75 of 2004. There is no dispute regarding the actual services provided by the assessee firms and the Revenue also did not deny the same. The only reason given by the Tribunal is that the assessees failed to substantiate their claims. The relevant portion of the order of the Tribunal reads as under: "3. We have given very careful consideration to the submissions and to the various documents filed before us. Referring to the balance-sheet of the firms we notice that there are no generators. There is a land and building. Referring to the profit and loss account we find the salary at Rs. 27,600 and depreciation claimed and partners remuneration and some general expenses. This is only to show that the cla....