TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (11) TMI 118
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The Assessments were framed by the Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax & Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-24(3), Mumbai (in short 'ACIT' & 'DCIT'/ AO') for the A.Y. 2013-14 & 2011-12 under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter 'the Act'). 2. These two appeals by Revenue is against the order of CIT(A) directing the AO to treat the rent from building as well as service & amenity charges to consider as income from House property as against assessed by AO as income from other sources. In both the years, the facts are exactly identical and hence, the facts and grounds we will take from AY 2011-12. The grounds raised by Revenue reads as under: - "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the building vi. Electric Pumps and water lines for common use vii. Access to common parking viii. Power Connection with a separate meter for the same ix. To permit fitting of outdoor AC Units x. Monitor functioning of lightning systems in the common areas, viz, outside the said building xi. To monitor the space surrounding the premises and maintain the same in suitable and proper condition so as to enable the Licensee to have free and uninterrupted access to the said premises including ingress and egress. xii. To provide common facilities and amenities in the said building to the Licensee. xiii. To provide maintenance, lightning, security and upkeep for the common areas of the building. xiv. To provide DG Backup for the c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vice charges which are separable from letting out of property and not amenities charges as in the case of the appellant. Further the case Attukal Shopping complex [2002], the issue was regarding proving of various services which were separable from letting out of property which is not the case of the appellant. Further, the cases are not from the Jurisdictional courts and dates back 2002. Much water has flown since then. Considering the totality of the facts and the other the case of Shambhu Investment (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2003) 263 ITR 143 (SC) and the decisions of Jurisdiction High court and ITAT, Mumbai Bench it is seen that no clinching evidence was brought out by the AO in support of his arguments. Appellant has in subsequent years i.e. 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....let to tenants under lease agreement and the tenants were provided with AC facilities there was no letting of AC plant separately. Similarly, in the case JK Investors Bombay Ltd., ITA No.6967/M/03 for A.Y 2000-01 the Tribunal had to consider the receipt of maintenance charges whether will form part of the income from house property. The Hon'ble Tribunal held that the mere splitting of rent is not decisive of the issue and each case has to be decided in the light of the facts and circumstances of each case. Keeping in mind above principles laid down in the judicial pronouncements, we are of the view, that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the rent for use of building as well as maintenance/amenity charges has to be consider....