2020 (3) TMI 880

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....Venkat Narayanan For the Respondent : Mr.M.Swaminathan, Senior Standing Counsel. COMMON JUDGMENT N.KIRUBAKARAN, J. These tax case appeal have been filed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 10.07.2017 in I.T.A.Nos.534 & 535/Mds/2017 in dismissing the appeals filed by the assessee. 2.The facts of the case are as follows: The Assessee is a wholly owned Government of Ta....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t, the Assessing Officer among others assessed the franchise fees received of Rs. 1,97,94,431/- under the head income from Business as against the claim of income from house property and disallowed the statutory deduction under Section 24 of 30% amounting to Rs. 59,38,329/-. 4.Aggrieved by the Order of the assessing officer, assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 6.Heard Mr.M.Venkat Narayanan, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr.M.Swaminathan, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent. 7.These Tax Case Appeals are admitted on the following substantial questions of law; "1.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the franchise fees should be assessed as business income and not unde....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....m development only then the income from leasing would constitute income from house property?" 8.The issue raised in this case is only whether the franchise fees charged by the appellant should be assessed as income from house property or business income. The learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the issue has already been decided in the Judgment of this Court in the case of "Tamil Nadu ....