TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (1) TMI 1016
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r CASS and the assessment was completed at an assessed income of Rs. 11,04,41,597 thereby making additions under different heads. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) after considering the submissions of both the parties, partly allowed the appeals. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the Revenue has filed the present appeal before us on the grounds mentioned hereunder : (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has not erred in law as well as on the facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,10,66,418 made by adding back one-third statutory deduction after treating the income from house property of Rs. 13,68,88,726 as income from business whereas the income received is of composite nature and not from the bare letting of the property ? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has not erred in law as well as on the facts in deletin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssee is to undertake the service of scanning, indexing, auditing, digitlisation and physical storage of booked documents, hence the income is not covered solely under the purview of income from house property as per the provisions of section 22 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the receipts are composite and cannot be segregated. 5. The learned Departmental representative also relied upon the written submissions filed by him on November 14, 2009 which are reproduced below : 1. The assessee was having a property situated in sector-62, Noida. The assessee entered into a service agreement on December 31, 2010 with M/s. PACL Ltd. As per the said agreement, the assessee was to provide services of receipt of documents/booklets, scanning the same using high quality latest scanners, keeping the documents for digital storage, auditing the documents in the digital form, indexing and storage of the same, maintaining software for documents for the location of the their hard copy, providing scanned images, etc. (clause 3 of the agreement). The services were to be performed at the prop erty of the assessee situated at Noida. 2. In consideration for various services performed b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... expertise for which consideration has been charged not on lump sum basis but on the basis of per unit work done and volume of the document handled during a particular time period. Such features of these composite activities performed are in the nature of business/profession and not in the nature of income from house property. 7. It is relevant to mention that M/s. PACL has deducted TDS upon such payment under section 194C of the Act by treating the same as contractual receipts and not under section 194-I as rental payments. 8. Though the Assessing Officer has not accepted the addendum, even if the addendum is considered, through which PACL had acquired control over the property, it would not change the nature of service agreement and nature of services performed on composite basis as per the addendum the control was taken by PACL to ensure confidentiality of the data only. 9. Storage was one of many services performed by the assessee and not the main service. Each and every service performed was equally important. The payments were made on composite basis for all the services rendered without specifying the bifurcation of each compo nent. Such income fro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., Banglore in the case of ITO v. Anjaneya Infrastructure Projects P. Ltd. (I. T. A. No. 693/Bang/2015 dated August 5, 2016). 11. From the facts of the present case it is thus humbly requested that the assessee has carried out the business activities/adventure in the nature of trade by performing various composite services for M/s. PACL during the year and thus there was no justification for treating the storage component as income from house property. It is also relevant that the assessee has bifurcated the composite services receipt into two components without any basis whereas there was no such bifurcation was provided in the agreement. 12. Without prejudice to the above grounds of appeal, the assessee represented before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) that the amount of Rs. 21,93,848 may be disallowed on account of depre ciation on the building situated at Noida and lease rentals paid against the income from house property. However such claim and basis of the same was never made available to the Assessing Officer even during the remand proceedings. It is relevant to note that the assessee has claimed huge expenses in the profit and loss account such as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y. 3. The renting of property was never the business of the appellant as it is not the object of the appellant. 4. On realising that premises is in excess of its own need, a part of property at Mohali was rented out to M/s. Spanco BPO Services Ltd. and rental income was included as income from house property in the computation of income and has been accepted by the Assessing Officer as such. The COI is forming part of paper book at pages 1 to 5. 5. As per the agreement dated December 31, 2010 the appellant had rented out the premises to PACL primarily for utilisation of its space to store records/booklets and the services of scanning, auditing, indexing and digital storage were merely ancillary/incidental to serve the main intention/purpose of providing physical storage. (page 28 to 37 of the paper book) 6. This agreement clearly specifies that the physical storage shall continue for till December 31, 2013 (para 2.4 and page 30 of the paper book) whereas the contract for ancillary services was for only one year, i. e., up to December 31, 2011 (para 4.2 and page 32 of the paper book). Therefore, physical storage was the prime intention of the appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntered into an agreement of physical storage of booklets. 12. It clarifies the intention of the parties that the property was let out to enable PACL to utilise the said space for storage of records/booklets and the service of scanning, indexing and auditing were merely incidental. 13. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer was of the view that the income shown by the appellant under the head 'income from house property' is business income and accordingly he taxed the same under the head 'income from business or profession' and standard deduction claimed under section 24(a) of the Act was disallowed vide order dated March 18, 2016. 14. Now, against the order passed by the worthy Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the Department is in appeal before your good self and our submission in this regard is as under : 15. Three conditions need to be satisfied before we tax the rental income as income from house properties which are : * Property must consist of land and building appurtenant thereto * The assessee must be the owner of such property. * The property may be used for any p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Such a question would depend upon the circumstances of each case. It is so held by the Constitution Bench of this court in Sultan Brothers P. Ltd. v. CIT [1964] 51 ITR 353 (SC) and we reproduce the relevant portion thereof (page 358) : '7. We think each case has to be looked at from a businessman's point of view to find out whether the letting was the doing of a busi ness or the exploitation of his property by an owner. We do not further think that a thing can by its very nature be a commercial asset. A commercial asset is only an asset used in a business and nothing else, and business may be carried on with practically all things. There fore, it is not possible to say that a particular activity is business because it is concerned with an asset with which trade is commonly carried on. We find nothing in the cases referred, to support the propo sition that certain assets are commercial assets in their very nature.' Shambhu Investment P. Ltd. v. CIT as reported in [2003] 263 ITR 143 (SC) ; [2003] 129 Taxman 70 (SC) Section 22, read with section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Income from house property-Chargeable as-Assessment treating income d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mann.com 27 (Bom) Section 22, read with section 28(i), of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Income from house property-Chargeable as (Business income v. House property income)-Assessment year 2008-09-Whether where assessee was engaged in business of development of real estate project, rental income received from unsold portion of property constructed by it was assessable to tax as income from house prop erty-Held, yes (para 3(e)) (in favour of assessee) Atma Ram Properties (P.) Ltd. v. Jt. CIT as reported in [2006] 102 TTJ 345 (ITAT-Delhi) "Even if the said property was held by the assessee-company as stock-in-trade in its capacity as a trader going by the nature of its business activities, the rental income was not earned by it from the tenants in its capacity as a trader. On the other hand, when the vacant possession of the tenements was obtained by the assessee-company and the vacant tenements were sold to the different parties from time to time, the assessee-company acted as a trader in the said transactions and the income arising out of such transaction was rightly assessed to tax under the head 'Profits and gains of business or profession'. However,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he ground that the assessee was not engaged in mere letting out of space with a view to earn rental income therefrom but was engaged in complex activities of undertaking services like scanning, indexing, auditing and digitisation of records, etc., for which consideration was received on a composite basis, i. e., per booklet basis and thus, the same constituted business activities as a whole. Accordingly, deduction claimed under section 24(a) was disallowed. 10. During the appellate proceedings, the learned authorised representative filed detailed submissions challenging the findings of the Assessing Officer and thus, on the basis of the detailed submissions, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) sought remand report from the Assessing Officer and consequently, the Assessing Officer furnished his remand report vide letter No. 18753 dated March 14, 2018. It is important to mention here that the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) while deciding the appeal filed by the assessee had relied upon his own order pertaining to the assessment year 2012-13 as during the assessment year, detailed order was passed and since the issues were identical for both the years, th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vices like scanning, digitisation, etc. The assessee received a composite amount of Rs. 12.50 per booklet for physical storage, indexing, scanning of the records, etc. The total consideration received from M/s. PACL Ltd. was bifurcated as "income from house property" and "income from business" but "income from house property" was declared on account of rent received for letting out space for storage of booklets, records. Income from business was declared on account of providing the ancillary service to M/s. PACL. The consolidated payment of Rs. 12.50 per booklet was bifurcated into Rs. 10.75 per booklet for providing storage space over a period of three years and Rs. 1.75 per booklet towards providing ancillary services like scanning, indexing, etc. 12. The main dispute in this case is whether the assessee was justified in bifurcating the receipts from M/s. PACL Ltd. as income under two heads, i. e., "income from house property" and "income from business". Initially the Assessing Officer had recorded his findings merely on the basis of the service agreement dated December 31, 2010 and has totally ignored the written addendum agreement executed between both the parties on April 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lotted to the assessee by the NOIDA authority and by Punjab Infotech at Mohali respectively and is in continuous use of the assessee for business purposes related to the activities of lT/ ITES. (c) A part of the property at Mohali was rented out to M/s. Spanco BPO Services Ltd. for annual rent amounting to Rs. 1,72,65,810. This rental income from Spanco was included as income from house property and has been accepted by the Assessing Officer. (d) In the previous year relevant to the assessment year 2010-11, the appellant offered to sell 50 per cent. share of the said properties located at C-56-A/10 and 11, Sector 62, Noida and at ITC-4, Sector 67, Mohali-160 062 to M/s. PACL India Limited and had also received a sum of Rs. 7 crores as advance towards sale of the said properties. (e) During the year under assessment, the assessee-company offered to tax Rs. 5,90,29,814 as income under the head 'house property' which included Rs. 4,17,64,004 from M/s. PACL India Limited and the balance Rs. 1,72,65,810 from M/s. Spanco BPO Services Limited. (f) The appellant had entered into a service agreement with M/s. PACL Ltd. on December 31, 2010. As per....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee would receive the service charge of Rs. 12.50 per booklet and there is no separate break up of payment for physical storage with other services provided. (viii) Clause 5,1 of the service agreement reads as under : "5.1 Charges : in consideration for the services performed by the second party, first party shall pay the second party a service charge ('service charges') at Rs. 12.50 (Rs. twelve and paisa fifty only) per booklet for auditing, indexing, scanning and physical storage." (g) M/s. PACL Ltd. has made deduction at two per cent. on all the payments it has made to the appellant which is applicable for contract payments. (h) The addendum dated April 12, 2011 to the agreement dated December 31, 2010 provides the following : This is the addendum to the agreement signed on 31st day of December 2010 by PACL India Limited (hereinafter referred to as first party) and Dr. LT. Planets Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the second party). This document merely clarifies the existing terms of the agree ment dated December 31, 2010 as described hereinbelow. The first party had, vide agreement dated December 31, 2010, engaged the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ome to be assessed under the head "profits and gains of business or profession". Section 22 of the Act reads as under : "The annual value of property consisting of any buildings or lands appurtenant thereto of which the assessee is the owner, other than such portions of such property as he may occupy for the purposes of any business or profession carried on by him, the profits of which are chargeable to Income-tax, shall be chargeable to Income-tax under the head 'Income from house property'." Thus as per the law laid down, the following three conditions must be satisfied before the income of the property can be taxed under the head "income from house property". 1. The property must consist of buildings and lands appurtenant thereto ; 2. The assessee must be the owner of such house property. The ownership includes both freehold and leasehold rights and also included deemed ownership ; 3. The property may be used for any purpose, but it should not be used by the owner for the purpose of any business or profession carried on by him, the profit of which is chargeable to tax. 14. On consideration of the agreement, i. e., ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ises meant for storage of confidential records of PACL was handed over to PACL. A portion of the building comprising approximately 40,000 square feet, was earmarked exclusively for the storage of booklets/ documents/files of PACL. It was also clarified in this addendum that incidental services of scanning, indexing, auditing, etc., of the docu ments would be done by the appellant at the same premises and thereafter they will be stored in the earmarked space. The complete control and exclusive possession over the space earmarked for PACL was handed over to them by the addendum. Thus it can be concluded that the agreement was for two independent activities, i. e., firstly for storage of records in space exclusively earmarked in the building and secondly for providing various services. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decisions of the hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of East India Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd. v. CIT [1961] 42 ITR 49 (SC), Sultan Brothers P. Ltd. v. CIT [1964] 51 ITR 353 (SC), Shambhu Investment P. Ltd. v. CIT [2003] 263 ITR 143 (SC) and Raj Dadarkar and Associates v. Asst. CIT [2017] 394 ITR 592 (SC). (b) The assessee-company derives ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... it are only incidental. Reliance in this regard is placed on the case of CIT v. Indian Ware housing Industries Ltd. [2002] 258 ITR 93 (Mad) wherein the hon'ble High Court of Madras held that the source of the income being the warehouses, it matters little as to who the lessee for the time being is, whether it is the same lessee continuing over a period of time or a shifting class of lessees who occupied the spaces for shorter periods and paid rental for such use and as such the same is income from house property and the case of Nutan Warehousing Co. (P.) Ltd. v. ITO on August 31, 2006, [2007] 106 TTJ 137 (Pune) wherein the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Pune Bench wherein considering the various decisions of the High Courts and of the Supreme Court on the question whether the income from letting out an asset under different situations was to be assessed as 'business income' or as "income from house property" held the income from providing ware housing facilities to various parties including Hindustan Lever Ltd. as income from house property. (d) The Assessing Officer has emphasised on the point that the premises under consideration were the main premises where....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....parately and under different heads. The portion of charges attributable to letting to the premises was to be assessed as 'income from house property' and the other portion of charges received for rendering of services was assessable as 'income from business' or 'income from other sources'. (g) The Assessing Officer has also emphasised on the fact that PACL had made deduction at two per cent. on all payments made to the appellant which means that the payments were contract payments. If there was a separate payment for physical storage, the same would been of the nature of rent payments and hence TDS at 10 per cent. would have been deducted. The hon'ble Supreme Court in various judgments, namely, East India Housing and Land Develop ment Trust Ltd. v. CIT [1961] 42 ITR 49 (SC), Sultan Brothers P. Ltd. v. CIT [1964] 51 ITR 353 (SC), Shambhu Investment P. Ltd. v. CIT [2003] 263 ITR 143 (SC) and Raj Dadarkar and Associates v. Asst. CIT [2017] 394 ITR 592 (SC) has consistently held that in order to determine the head under which the income shall fall, the true char acter/substance of the transactions had to be seen. The fact that the PACL had deducted ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e various case law cited by the assessee were not applicable in his case as the dominant intention in this case was not of earning rent but giving services to PACL. These arguments are the same as those are given by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order. These have been considered by me at length in the foregone paras and after considering all the facts and the circumstances of the case I have held the agreement was for two independent activities, i. e., firstly for storage of records in space exclusively earmarked in the building and secondly for providing various services. The dominant intention of the agreement and addendum was earning income from storage of documents and the other services were only incidental. For the sake of brevity the reasons for coming to this conclusion are not repeated, suffice it to hold that these observations of the Assessing Officer are not justified. In the remand report the Assessing Officer has stated that memorandum and articles of the assessee-company does not have a clause regarding renting of the property as an object of the company and hence it strengthens the argument that the assessee has not let out the property. This conclusion of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ding is to be taxed under the specific head of "income from house property". (c) The Supreme Court, in the case of Shambhu Investment P. Ltd. v. CIT [2003] 263 ITR 143 (SC), affirmed the decision of the Calcutta High Court (CIT v. Shambhu Investment P. Ltd. [2001] 249 ITR 47 (Cal)) wherein the High Court had observed as under (headnote) : "If the main intention of the assessee is to let out the property or any portion thereof the income must be considered as rental income or income from property . . . It was evident from the agreement that the assessee had let out the furnished office to the occupants on a monthly rental which was inclusive of all charges to the assessee. The entire cost of the property let out to the occupants had been recovered as and by way of inter est-free advance by the assessee. Therefore, it could not be said that the assessee was exploiting the property for its commercial business activities." (d) The latest decision of the Supreme Court on this issue is in the case of Raj Dadarkar and Associates v. Asst. CIT [2017] 394 ITR 592 (SC). In that case the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority ("MHADA") h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oviding various services, including secu rity charges, utilities, etc. In the return of income for the relevant assessment year the appel lant declared the entire income from the aforesaid shops and stalls under the head "business income". In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer, however, reclassified licence fee received from sublicensees as "income from house property", on the ground that since the assessee was the deemed owner of the property, rental income earned therefrom was to be assessed under that head only, in accord ance with the provisions of section 22 of the Act. On further appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), allowed the appeal of the assessee and reversed the order of the Assessing Officer. On further appeal against the aforesaid order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) preferred by the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal reversed the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. The order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was also confirmed by the High Court. On further appeal, the apex court, too, confirmed the order of the High Court and held that the rental inc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... rent, normally such an income is to be treated as income from house property, in case the provisions of section 22 of the Act are satisfied with primary ingredient that the assessee is the owner of the said building or lands appurtenant thereto. Section 22 of the Act makes 'annual value' of such a property as income chargeable to tax under this head. How annual value is to be determined is provided in section 23 of the Act. 'Owner of the house property' is defined in section 27 of the Act which includes certain situations where a person not actually the owner shall be treated as deemed owner of a building or part thereof. In the present case, the appellant is held to be 'deemed owner' of the property in question by virtue of section 27(iiib) of the Act. On the other hand, under certain circum stances, where the income may have been derived from letting out of the premises, it can still be treated as business income if letting out of the premises itself is the business of the assessee. 15. What is the test which has to be applied to determine whether the income would be chargeable under the head 'Income from house property' or it would be ch....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it could be said that income received by the appellant was to be treated as income from the business. Before us, apart from relying upon the aforesaid clause in the partnership deed to show its objective, the learned counsel for the appellant has not produced or referred to any material. On the other hand, we find that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal had specifically adverted to this issue and recorded the find ings on this aspect in the following manner : '26. On this issue facts available on record are that the assessee let out shops/stalls to various occupants on a monthly rent. The asses see collected charges for minor repairs, maintenance, water and electricity. As per the terms of allotment by the BMC, the assessee was bound to incur all these expenses. The assessee, in turn, collected extra money from the allottees. The assessee collected 20 per cent. of the monthly rent as service charges. Such service charges were also used for providing services like watch and ward, electricity, water, etc. This in our opinion was inseparable from basic charges of rent. The assessee has made bifurcation of the receipt from the occupiers of the shops/stalls as rent and servi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d, we first refer to the judgment of this court in East India Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd.'s case [1961] 42 ITR 49 (SC) which has been relied upon by the High Court. That was a case where the company was incorporated with the object of buying and developing landed properties and promoting and developing markets. Thus, the main objective of the company was to develop the landed properties into markets. It so happened that some shops and stalls, which were developed by it, had been rented out and income was derived from the renting of the said shops and stalls. In those facts, the question arose for consideration was : whether the rental income that is received was to be treated as income from the house property or the income from the business ? This court while holding that the income shall be treated as income from house property, rested its decision in the context of the main objective of the company and took note of the fact that letting out of the property was not the object of the company at all. The court was therefore, of the opinion that the character of that income which was from the house property had not altered because it was received by the company formed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y very complex ones and cover a multitude of obligations and responsibilities. It is not always possible or worthwhile for the parties to dissect the consideration and apportion it to the various ingredi ents or elements comprised in the contract. The cases referred to by the Tribunal and Sri Ahuja as to the indivisibility of a contract arose in an entirely different context. For purposes of Income-tax, a principle of apportionment has always been applied in different contexts. Consolidated receipts and expenses have always been considered apportionable in the contexts : (a) of the capital and revenue constituents comprised in them ; (b) portions of expenditure attrib utable to business and non-business purposes ; (c) of places of accrual or arisal ; and (d) of agricultural and non-agricultural elements in such receipts or payments. This is a point that does not need much elaboration and it is sufficient to refer to decided cases cited under the passages on this topic at pp. 47, 137, 264, 621 and 677 of Kanga and Palkhivala's The Law and Practice of Income Tax (Volume 1, eighth edition). We are, therefore, of the opinion that, if, as we have held, the contracts in the present c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le as income from house property whereas lift charges and air-conditioning charges were held assessable as income from other sources. (k) Jai Metal Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [2017] 396 ITR 194 (Delhi) ; [2017] 84 taxmann.com 11 (Delhi). (l) CIT v. National Storage P. Ltd. [1967] 66 ITR 596 (SC), and (m) Dutta Properties v. ITO (I. T. A. Nos. 973-979/Kolkata/2012 dated July 1, 2015). 16.1 In view of the combined reading of all the agreements with regard to the two independent activities and also taking into consideration the decisions as mentioned above, we are also of the view that the agree ments are for two independent activities, i. e., first, letting out the premises for storage of documents and second for providing services like scanning, digitisation, etc. The dominant object of the agreement was storage of documents and providing of services like scanning, digitisation, etc., was ancillary. The income arising out of letting out of premises for storage of records has to be assessed under the head "income from house property" and therefore, income arising out of providing services has to be assessed under the head "business income". Accord....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ost of scanning per booklet 0.22 (i. e. Cost of Scanner/Average No. of pages scanned per scanner) *6 pages -(Rs. 6,58,350/180,00,000)*6. 2. Cost of direct wages per booklet for unstapling, scanning. checking the quality of scan and restapling. 0.78 (i. e., average per minute salary* average minutes per booklet of 6 pages -Rs. 0.52 per minute *90 seconds. -Average per minute salary is (Rs. 6,500/(26 days *8 hours *60 minutes) = Rs. 0.52. 3. Cost of direct wages for making bundles, packing in plastic bags and lying the same to hand them for storage. 0.26 (i. e., average per minute salary *average minutes per booklet) (Rs. 0.52 per minute * 0.50 minute (i. e., 30 seconds) per booklet) 4. Cost of the high quality plastic bag and tag to store the booklet (cost per bag /100) *1 -2 Rs. per bag /100 booklets. 0.02 5. Miscellaneous expenses (e. g., electricity, water and miscellaneous expenses, etc.) 0.15 6. Profit margin 0.32 Total cost of scanning per booklet of 6 pages 1.75 Cost per page, i. e., Rs. 1.75/6 pages 0.29 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thus in making the aforesaid addition, the Assessing Officer has failed to appreciate these facts that the assessee had correctly bifurcated the total consideration on scientific basis and location for scanning work works out fully comparable with the similar/identical services rendered to the hon'ble High Court. Moreover, the Assessing Officer has also not confronted the assessee for the same facts during the course of assessment proceedings and thus, the basis for bifurcation done by the assessee which has been detailed above has went unrebutted. In our considered view, the bifurcation done by the assessee under the two heads of income, i. e., "income from house property" and "income from business" is in conformity with law and the same has been done on the basis of comparative market rate as charged by him from the other parties including that of the hon'ble High Court. That since the bifurcation has been done on scientific basis and no infirmity has been pointed out on record by the Assessing Officer by placing on record any counter rates or has not been able to rebut the said comparative market rates placed on record by the assessee, no new facts or circumstances have ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... rented to PACL should be disallowed. Ground of appeal No. 2 is allowed." 20. After having heard the counsels and perusal of the orders, we find that similar additions were also made in the assessment year 2011-12 which were deleted by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) vide order dated May 25, 2017 wherein 100 per cent. depreciation was allowed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). On handsets, phones 80 per cent. depreciation has been allowed and 60 per cent. depreciation was allowed on projector, therefore, following the said decisions the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had decided this ground. 21. The Revenue has not placed on record any material to rebut the contentions of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) or has not placed on record any order of higher authority disagreeing with the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in the earlier orders. Thus, we find no reasons to interfere into the said finding recorded by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Therefore, this ground raised by the Revenue also stands dismissed. 22. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed. I. T. A. No. 1396/Chd/2018 Ground Nos....